Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
The increase of chaos in 19th century Europe, brought about by the undermining of monarchies, was offset by the growth of national consciousness among the peoples of Europe.
The idea that the overthrow of a monarchy would always lead to self-government of "the people" was transparently fraudulent. Powerful Jews were often ideally positioned when the monarch fell. The Jews were, then as now, a people unto themselves. They had their own interests, and these interests were often antithetical to the interests of the peoples among whom they lived.
Self-government of a people leads to nationalism and a sensitivity to alien control of government. Consequently there was a healthy, although grossly inadequate, reaction against Jewish power. Nationalism is inherently hostile toward organized Jewry, and organized Jewry is inherently hostile toward nationalism.
Though all kinds of government be improved in modern times, yet monarchical government seems to have made the greatest advance to perfection. It may now be affirmed of civilized monarchies, what was formerly said of republics alone, that they are a government of laws, not of men. They are susceptible of order, method, and constancy, to a surprising degree. Property is there secure; industry is encouraged; the arts flourish; and the prince lives among his subjects like a father among his children.Hume added that he saw more "sources of degeneracy" in representative republics like that of England than in France, which he called "the most perfect model of pure monarchy."
It is generally conceded that a conspiracy orchestrated the French Revolution. The moderate members of the conspiracy, such as Lafayette, were appalled at the outcome of the process they had helped to start. Lafayette and many others had merely wanted to establish a constitutional monarchy, but as in all revolutions, the moderates did not determine the outcome.
But in spite of any conspiracy, Louis XVI could not have been overthrown had he not allowed himself to be overthrown.
This may seem a peculiar thing to say, that Louis XVI allowed himself to be overthrown, allowed his kingdom to be ruined, and subjected himself and many others to the whim of filthy degenerates, but Louis XVI was a liberal, much like the liberals we encounter today. He was an enemy to his friends and a friend to his enemies. The entire French Revolution could have been stifled on several occasions if only the King had allowed his bodyguards and his troops to deal with the gangs of hired ruffians in the manner they so richly deserved. But no, Louis was a "humanitarian." In the Siege of the Tuileries the King's own Swiss guards were brutally murdered simply because he had forbidden them to raise their weapons, even in self-defense, against those hired thugs whom the King naively regarded as "the people."
Louis was not a congenitally stupid man, but from childhood his head had been filled with wrong ideas, the same kind of wrong ideas which public schools and the mass-media impress upon us and our children today.
The fate of Louis XVI should be a cautionary tale about the deadliness of wrong ideas. Some wrong ideas, the "brotherhood of man," for example, are highly infectious because they appeal to wishful thinking; it is soothing and pleasant to think that violence, conflict, and death are mere vestiges of an unenlightened past, and that all unpleasantness can be avoided simply by being nice to everyone. This mode of thinking is a deadly form of self-indulgence.
Louis XVI had far more armed forces than were needed to crush the Revolution, but he chose not to crush it. Over one million Frenchmen, many of whom were the best in the nation, were murdered -- as a consequence of his "humanitarianism."
It should be noted, however, that the Czar, like Louis XVI, essentially permitted his own rule to be replaced. At first, it was replaced by a republic. The republic was weak and dissolute and ended up paving the way for a reign of terror. As in France, the better racial elements were murdered.
The preponderance of Jewish influence in the Bolshevik Revolution is thoroughly documented. Additionally, Zionism played a part. Zionism is, and was, an integral aspect of the largely Jewish New World Order. Rabbi Moses Hess, one of the primary instigators of Zionism, was a mentor of Karl Marx.
In 1914 the greatest power in the White world was the British Empire. After the First World War the alleged "victor," Great Britain, was a second-rate power. After the Second World War, which Britain also supposedly "won," she was a third-rate power and quickly stripped of almost all her possessions. How was this great empire destroyed?
As a consequence of the First World War, the international Jewish bankers raked in a huge debt. Britain in particular was ruinously indebted. Britain's plight would not have been so grievous had the Jewish bankers not succeeded in prolonging the war by involving the United States. Even Winston Churchill later stated that it would have been better if the United States had stayed out of World War I.
However, it was the moral weakness of Britain's leaders which allowed Britain to suffer usury and to participate in that fratricidal war. One can blame the people of Britain for having elected such leaders, and it is the British people who have suffered because of it, but it is an inherent feature of every democratic republic that the people can only vote on the basis of information the controlled media give them. It is only in retrospect that a voter can know whether he has made a mistake. Britain has gone to its ruin quietly and obediently, lacking a national leadership with the will to preserve the nation.
Jewish bankers, many of whom were influential Zionists, extorted the Balfour Declaration from Britain. Organized Jewry promised Britain to bring the United States into the war against Germany if, after the war, they would be given Palestine. How were the Jews able to bring the United States into the war? Firstly, even at that time, they owned many newspapers in the United States which they used for pro-war propaganda. And secondly, through Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was a weak-willed and self-indulgent man. He was the first U.S. president to be surrounded by Jewish "advisors" and to be thoroughly beholden to Jewish interests.
The German Kaiser, William II, had been a great friend of the Jews and had many Jews in his government. Jewish gratitude manifested itself just as it always has historically -- as a stab in the back. Germany was deserted by World Jewry the moment Britain offered the Jews a sweeter deal: the Balfour Declaration.
The "war to make the world safe for democracy," as it was called, was the first war explicitly propagandized as a struggle for a New World Order. In November 1918, on the eve of the German surrender, the "League to Enforce Peace" published a pamphlet entitled The Foundations of a New World Order. The nominal president of the League was former U.S. President William Howard Taft. Evidence suggests the "League to Enforce Peace" was largely a Jewish creation. And its Orwellian-sounding title carries the mark of one of their operations.
The Pyrrhic victors of the First World War could not disregard the egalitarian New World Order propaganda which they had spouted. Lothrop Stoddard, a widely read political and social commentator in the post-war period, wrote in The Rising Tide of Color in 1920:
During the war years the allied statesmen had officially proclaimed times without number that the war was being fought to establish a new world order based on such principles as the rights of small nations, and the liberty of all peoples. These pronouncements had been treasured and memorized throughout the East. When, therefore, the East saw a peace settlement based, not upon those high professions, but upon the imperialistic secret treaties, it was fired with a moral indignation and sense of outraged justice never known before.The European powers, while they displayed an unlimited capacity for treachery toward defeated Germany, whose people were certainly not granted self-determination, did abide by their foolish feel-good propaganda of a "New World Order" when it came to the non-White world. Unrest by non-Whites in British and French colonies was met with concessions, and the European empires were gradually dissolved.
It is ironic that Britain was a leading promoter of the League of Nations and the New World Order; it perhaps lost more than any other nation because of it. It seems less ironic if one considers that British foreign policy was under the control of Jewish bankers, who did not give a hoot about Britain's destiny. Once the Britons had developed and pacified the dark continent sufficiently for safe operation of Jewish-owned gold, copper, and diamond mines, they were disposable. Beyond this trail-blazing function, all those White colonists were just in the way. And the destruction of White political power in Africa was an explicit part of the New World Order agenda.
A collection of essays entitled "The New World Order" was published by Oxford University Press in 1932. In the essay entitled Race Problems in Industry and Culture, F. S. Marvin states:
Until South Africa can not only contemplate, but insist on having, a Bantu as one of its delegation to Geneva, it has not recognized the principle.Marvin also advocated the admission of the non-White hordes into White homelands. He wrote:
But there does exist a teeming population in Japan, pressing for outlets, and hundreds of millions of Chinese . . . . India, too, constantly increases her needy but industrious and naturally skillful peasantry. Meanwhile the white man in Australia, South Africa, and on the Pacific Coast [of the United States] is maintaining in his own supposed interest the strictest exclusion that he can arrange against the settlement of these people in lands which he controls, and they could happily and profitably inhabit. It is a policy untenable in the long run, condemned alike by considerations of industry, biology, and humanity. Let us be thankful that a League of Nations stands in the breach, not yet to take active steps, for other more urgent tasks are at hand, but to keep steadily before the eyes of all parties the hopes and duties of cooperating mankind.F.S. Marvin was a professor of history and a member of the Royal Historical Society. It is absolutely terrifying that there have been, and are, men who hold positions of respect who speak such idiocy. Similarly, in more recent times, the Queen of England, in her Christmas address of 1994, praised the recent introduction of "democracy" to South Africa. F.S. Marvin's prescription was a toned-down version of the tirades of lunatic abolitionists one hundred years earlier. They said the same things because they suffered from the same syndrome: sadomasochistic race-treason clothed in the sanctimonious pretension of Judaic otherworldliness.
The conspiracy theorists who make so much noise about Cecil Rhodes and say the New World Order is a British conspiracy are trafficking information that is not only incomplete and misleading, but grossly out of date. One of these groups is the Lyndon Larouche organization whose leading figures appear to be mostly Jews. Similarly, it is a lie that the New World Order -- even Communism -- is a "Russian" phenomena. The biggest lie, however, is that the New World Order is some sort of German or "Nazi" plot. It is primarily Jewish in origin. "Patriots" who tell you otherwise are ill-informed or liars.
Bolshevism was viewed with great alarm by Russia's neighbor, Germany, which now found itself flanked on one side by the Soviet Union, and on the other by Judeo-Masonic France. In the economic ruin deliberately foisted upon Germany at the end of the First World War, Bolshevism was a serious menace. A Judeo-Communist regime even seized power briefly in Bavaria shortly after the war.
The liberal Weimar constitution imposed on Germany after the war was written by Hugo Preuss, a Jew. The dominant political party of the Weimar period was the Social Democratic Party, founded by Ferdinand Lasalle, also a Jew.
The economic devastation of Germany under the Weimar government was extreme. The currency became worthless. Workers were paid with wheelbarrows full of money -- twice a day, because the depreciation was so rapid that your money would lose half its value by nightfall. Eventually, billion-mark postage stamps were printed, and trillion-mark bank notes, but all had the same ultimate value: zero. German workers and soldiers saw their savings and their future turn into nothingness. German children starved. Jewish businessmen, during the same period, bought ancient German estates for pocket change in foreign currency.
The Weimar regime was a sink-pit of degeneracy, corruption, and ugliness. Nihilistic creeds of self-destruction were made popular by the mostly Jewish-controlled magazines and newspapers. Drug use skyrocketed. Homosexuality suddenly became "fashionable." Modern "art" replaced the beautiful images of the pre-1918 period. Pornography of the grossest and most indecent kind was popularized. Marxism was preached from university lecterns and even many church pulpits. Sound familiar?
This was what it meant to implement the New World Order in Germany. What followed was a powerful reaction against the New World Order. But it was not merely a reaction. Nor was it an impractical attempt to reinstate the Old Order, although it did preserve much of what was good in the Old Order.
The Old Order had been based on monarchy and Christianity. Even in the anti-monarchical United States, Christian baptism was a widespread qualification for holding public office until the middle of 19th century. This reliance on religion alone as the official basis of society had made the Old Order vulnerable. Belief in Christianity had declined, especially among more educated Europeans. Some of the best minds of our race were resentful of the Old Order. And the reliance on Christianity meant any racial alien could become part of the nation simply by undergoing the ritual of baptism. For many Jews, this ritual was meaningless. It was simply submitted to as a means to achieve power.
In opposition to the New World Order, Hitler erected his New Order of Europe. It had some of the characteristics of the Old Order; for example, it preserved the nation-state and traditional morality. It also preserved many of Old Order's trappings, such as the customary Roman salute. But it was different from the Old Order in that it was primarily based, not on religion, but on race.
Another lie is that Hitler was a member of the Thule Society. Such a society did exist, but Hitler regarded it as an embarrassment. You may read his opinion of its freakish "occult" characters in the last chapter of Book I of Mein Kampf.
It is also a lie that Hitler took away the guns from the German people. The promoters of this falsehood usually make the insinuation by means of a verbal shell-game, in which they distort the actual disarming of non-citizen, non-German, Jewish deportees during the war into a fictitious disarming of the German people -- an event which never took place under National Socialism.
The National Socialists actually relaxed the gun laws in Germany. In fact, private ownership of guns persisted in Germany until the New World Order forces of the Allies rolled in and confiscated guns, and converted Germany into a brainwashed province of the New World Order.
This myth of Hitler the gun-grabber has been promoted most vociferously by an organization calling itself "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership." It should be clear that Jews in general are a very biased source of information about Hitler.
Because Hitler put the interests of his own people first, and freed them from the New World Order, World Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933. They revived essentially the same propaganda they had used against the Kaiser. With appropriate changes, the same kind of propaganda is used to rouse us against whoever the current enemy of the New World Order happens to be.
Heaven forbid that our people should ever have a strong leader who cares for our survival as a people, as Hitler cared for Germany. That would not suit the New World Order at all!
And that is why the obsession with the democratic republic as a form of government is a grievous error in the American patriot movement. When the New World Order was implemented in Germany, it included the establishment of a republican constitution in place of the monarchy. Our political tradition in the U.S. and our public school education lead us automatically to regard this as progress. Really, we ought not to be so smug.
Those who make "democracy" their political ideal are, whether they realize it or not, helping the New World Order. Our main concern about government should not be whether it is a "big government" or a "democratic" government, but whether it is a government which serves us -- or serves our enemies.
It is absurd to moralize against Adolf Hitler for setting up a strong government to preserve his people from the New World Order. It is absurd to criticize him for not acting like a typical American conservative -- for not using approaches that have always failed. Conservatives always compromise; they use half-measures and try to be nice to everyone. It is to Hitler's credit that he saw clearly what had to be done and did it, with very little compromise. Let us no longer make virtues of irresolution and weakness; let us no longer moralize against success.
It is customary for "patriotic" commentators to wail endlessly about the threat of the New World Order "taking over the United States." The New World Order is not some future threat. It rules now.
The New World Order crowd has been at the levers of power in the United States during most of this century. They experienced a temporary setback in the 1920s, during the Harding and Coolidge administrations, when popular sentiment recognized that the First World War had been a grievous error. During the 1920s immigration was drastically reduced, and a number of Jewish subversives were even deported. But since the Great Depression swept Franklin Roosevelt and his retinue of Jews and Communists into power, the New World Order has had uninterrupted control of the United States Government. The McCarthy era marked the last important attempt to regain control of the United States government for the American people. McCarthyism failed because the full depth and racial nature of the problem were not recognized and faced in a forthright manner. Most of the patriotic efforts since McCarthy have been far more timid, far less inclined to call a spade a spade and, as a consequence, have failed utterly. We see its effects all around us, especially in the underminining of our race, though many patriots are too afraid to say this.
Learning from history is important, and it is interesting to study various regimes from as objective an outlook as possible. This becomes very difficult when a government, its leader, or its people have become demonized and turned into a metaphor for "evil."
Another heavily-demonized regime is the Old America, which I would define roughly as pre-1965 America, or European-America. Hardly a day goes by that the networks or the lie-papers don't torment us with a documentary "proving" the evil "racism" and "oppression" that were omnipresent in the Old America. However, anyone over 40 can remember America was freer, safer, more cultured, more prosperous, and more optimistic then than now. Exempt from demonization, of course, are New World Order change agents like the Marxist profligate "Martin Luther" King and the unspeakable Franklin Roosevelt, who were doing their best to destroy the Old America and everything it stood for. They are not demonized, but are regarded as heroes, if not saints!
The National Socialist regime in Germany between 1933 and 1945 has been demonized even more than the Old America. It has become a metaphor for "evil" used by almost all political factions in the insane asylum that still goes by the name "America."
We have the loony left accusing militias of being dangerous "nazis," while some right-wing "patriot" groups accuse the Clintonistas and their enforcers of being "nazis," "fascists," "stormtroopers," etc. "Nazi" has become a word that one attaches to any form of government power, or rebellion against government power, that one disapproves of. For all practical purposes, the word has ceased to have any actual meaning.
Like the word "witch" in the 16th century, the word "nazi" still has the power to instill fear of ostracism or punishment, so cowards of many political stripes do all sorts of mental and verbal gymnastics to avoid the feared appellation.
The really interesting thing to note is that National Socialist Germany is not demonized by the establishment for its possible faults -- but rather for one of its virtues. After all, many regimes of yesterday -- and today -- have far less personal freedom than was allowed citizens there. They have far less press freedom, far more regimentation, far higher taxation, far more government regulation, far more hostility toward their own citizens, and all the rest of it.
The real reason, and in fact the only reason, National Socialist Germany is demonized is the same reason that pre-1965 America is demonized: Both favored the survival of the White race. This is a crime that the New World Order cannot forgive.
Literally hundreds of nationalist, anti-Communist, and patriotic societies and organizations have arisen, prospered, and fallen in the past 80 years. Some of them achieved national recognition and had many thousands of members and supporters. Some names you would recognize, such as the America First Committee and the John Birch Society. Some may be familiar to you from their current shortwave and satellite radio broadcasts. While some of these organizations have made small fortunes, both by selling quack cures (for disease and for subversion) and by selling overpriced precious metals; they have all failed to halt the advance of the New World Order.
The doctrine "all men are created equal" is one such sacred cow. It must be repudiated by patriots, for in five short words it exemplifies New World Order ideology.
Its origin lies in the 18th century philosophy of the Enlightenment, which first enshrined the ideas of 1) basic human equality, and 2) rights which inhere in every human being equally regardless of the worth or attainments of that human being.
The American Revolution may have merely adopted some of the notions of the Enlightenment, such as "all men are created equal," simply because these were fashionable ideas at the time which were conducive to revolution.
The Declaration of Independence incorporates the very unfortunate statement, the only statement from that document which the public schools and the Jewish-controlled media have made sure that we know by heart: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . ." Now, it is obvious to almost everyone that individual human beings are not born equal to each other. On the face of it, Thomas Jefferson's statement is blatantly, and even embarrassingly, untrue. Jefferson himself later advocated repatriation of Blacks to Africa. This may give us some insight into his more mature and considered views. Unfortunately however, he did write that phrase.
During the Enlightenment, leading philosophers such as John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau seriously argued that everyone was born mentally identical. Locke's term for the condition of the mind at birth was tabula rasa, Latin for "blank slate." Racial differences were thought to be due to environmental influence over the course of just a few generations. These fallacies, part of the intellectual universe in which Thomas Jefferson lived, were overturned in the nineteenth century. Many scientists, including Charles Darwin, began making discoveries that showed human equality was a myth. Darwin dealt a death blow to the superstitions of the Enlightenment by providing evidence that man was part of the animal kingdom in which all are clearly not created equal.
Darwin wrote that men are not tabulae rasae; human motivations and emotions are based on instincts. These are at least partially hereditary, and differ from one race to another. More recently, mainstream psychology has largely acknowledged that the characteristics of the mind are largely hereditary, although the Politically Correct adherents of the Boas school still argue the point.
Science should have utterly dispelled the belief that all men are created equal, but unfortunately, because it is a piece of cant which has been enshrined on a holy relic of the United States it has continued to distort thinking. The Declaration of Independence was not regarded as a holy relic until about the 1840s, when it was put on display in the National Portrait Gallery, at the urging of Daniel Webster.
When "Martin Luther" King Jr. spoke in Washington, DC, in 1963, he used the words in the Declaration as if they were a debt instrument. He said in effect, you claim to believe this; you must act accordingly. (Perhaps his Jewish and Communist associate, Stanley Levison, had something to do with it.) It is a dramatic illustration of the latent destructive power of wrong ideas.
The Declaration of Independence, with enthronement of Judaic egalitarian dogma, has been a millstone around the neck of the American people. It has provided powerful rhetorical ammunition for egalitarian dogmatists. Yet, since it is one of the founding documents of the United States, the average American does not feel that it would be safe to say that the words of the Declaration are obviously not literally true -- although he may know this perfectly well. Thus the average American is intimidated into endorsing the fundamental premise of the New World Order, "all men are created equal."
The Constitution of the United States is on an altogether higher level. We are indeed fortunate to have the rights which the Constitution expresses, but that piece of paper did not create them. These rights are part of the Anglo Saxon tradition and spring from the soul of our branch of the White race. The republican form of government has hardly existed outside of the White world (except in name) because it presupposes a self-discipline and independence of thought which are characteristic primarily of our race. When the republican form is transplanted to Africa or Asia, it simply does not work the same way. Witness Liberia. Witness the Philippines.
Many secret societies have been heavily influenced by Cabalism -- a system of esoteric theory and "magic" developed by rabbis from the 7th to 13th centuries. "Illumination" is an important term in Cabalism, hence the series of Jewish-led organizations calling themselves Illuminati or Illuminated Ones. The Freemasons are one of the secret societies which have been influenced both by Jews and by Cabalism. With Illuminism and Freemasonry, the Jews essentially resumed the ancient Jewish practice of multiplying their own power by proselytizing Gentiles.
We may note in passing the continuing Jewish involvement in New Age cults, all of which, for some reason or other, seem to have "equality" and "brotherhood" and "One World" as central themes. The credulous followers of these cults are thus hoodwinked, like the Masons, into advancing the Jewish agenda in the name of a spurious humanitarianism with a small, or large, helping of "spiritual" gobbledygook thrown in.
It is customary among patriot commentators, eager to stay marginally on the Jews' good side, to point to some Gentile stooge as an excuse to avoid implicating the Jews. The so-called Jewish "patriots" can also be counted on to do this. The fact that these essentially Jewish organizations try to ensnare Gentile stooges is not at all surprising in light of Isaiah 61, which states:
Aliens shall stand and feed your flocks, foreigners shall be your plowmen and vine dressers; but you shall be called the priests of the Lord, men shall speak of you as the ministers of our God; you shall eat the wealth of nations, and in their riches you shall glory.Jews often recruit Gentiles to be their "plowmen and vine dressers," or some equivalent thereof.
Grand Orient Freemasonry and quasi-Masonic secret societies such as Adam Weishaupt's Order of Illuminati had an important role in inciting the French Revolution. The Grand Orient Lodge of Freemasonry, notorious for being Jewish-controlled, horrified Europe by ordering that Louis XVI be executed.
Jewish writer Max Dimont states in Jews, God, and History that there was an addition to Cabalism in the 16th century, which has significant implications:
A new metaphysical philosophy was injected into Cabalism in the sixteenth century by one of the great Cabalistic scholars, Isaac Luria (1534-1572), known as Ari, 'the lion.' Luria held that all matter and thought evolved through a three stage cycle: tzimtzum, literally 'contraction' or thesis; shevirat hakeilim, literally 'breaking of the vessels' or antithesis; and tikkun, literally 'restoration' or synthesis.That last Hebrew term, tikkun, you have heard before: It is the name of Rabbi Michael Lerner's Jewish magazine. It was Rabbi Lerner who was the spiritual advisor of First Lady Hillary Clinton. It was Rabbi Lerner who put the words "politics of meaning" into her mouth.
Also notable is Jacob Frank, a Jew and the leader of the Frankists. They also called themselves the "Illuminated." This group was part of what is called the "Jewish Reformation," which also included Hasidic Judaism. Jewish writer, Norman F. Cantor, states in The Sacred Chain: the History of the Jews:
Central to Frank's doctrine, and practiced by him and some of his followers, was the legitimacy of sexual promiscuity based on the assumption, from Cabalistic derivation, that sexual activity was a form of cosmic healing, unifying the spiritual and material realms.The "free love" advocated and practiced by Jacob Frank and his ilk was echoed in the French Revolution, in the Bolshevik Revolution, in the radical abolitionist movement of the American Civil War era, and in the hippie movement of the 60s.
Few of those involved were Jews themselves, but they represent an example of the Jewish "ideals" of universal human equality, which are vended to the gullible.
The general character of the abolitionists is suggested by a memoir of Henry B. Stanton, who attended a convention of abolitionists in Boston:
There was a representative array on the front seats, near the platform. First was Garrison, his countenance calling to mind the pictures of the prophet Isaiah in a rapt mood; next was the fine Roman head of Wendell Phillips; at his right was Father Lampson, so called, a crazy loon -- his hair and flowing beard as white as the driven snow. He was the inventor of the valuable scythe-snath, and invariably carried a snath in his hand. His forte was selling his wares on secular days and disturbing religious meetings on Sunday. Next to Lampson sat Edmund Quincy, high born and wealthy, the son of the famous President Quincy [of Harvard]. Next to Quincy was Abigail Folsom, another lunatic, with a shock of unkempt hair reaching down to her waist. At her right was George W. Mellen, clad in the military costume of the Revolution, and fancying himself to be General Washington, because he was named after him. Poor Mellen died in an asylum.Another prominent figure in Radical Abolitionism was Victoria Woodhull, who was also a feminist, an occultist, and a Communist.
As if her time did not pass spectacularly enough, Victoria Woodhull organized an American section of the International Workingmen's Association [the First Communist International]. In this endeavor her chief ally was William West . . . Their section of the International advocated woman's suffrage and sexual freedom as well as Stephen Pearl Andrews' pet theories of universal language and "pantarchical" order."These flakes were an embarrassment even to the Marxists. In the interests of party orthodoxy, Victoria Woodhull's section was expelled from the party when Marx relocated the center of World Communism from London to New York City in 1872.
In 1863 Henry C. Wright published The Self-Abnegationist, which was a reaction against the findings of Charles Darwin vis a vis the implications for man. Wright defined self-abnegation in these terms: "Suffer rather than inflict suffering; die, rather than kill."
He further explains:
Self-preservation, at the expense of others, is condemned by universal consciousness . . . . Let any man, whatever be his moral or intellectual development, fully understand the meaning of self-abnegation and then enter into the sacred and silent depths of his own soul, and he will find this to be an abiding law of his nature, to which he will find his heaven in being obedient.Mainstream historian Lewis Perry states that there was behind radical abolitionism a religious movement called "Perfectionism," which is "the quest for perfect holiness and the idea that such perfection might be immediately possible." Perry further states:
Perfectionist ideas permeated the major denominations and inspired a variety of shockingly radical splinter movements. It was possible for those who deemed their personal sanctification to be perfect to attack the practices of institutional churches and hold themselves to new standards of morality. Rumors of sexual promiscuity particularly haunted the career of perfectionism in upstate New York. John Humphrey Noyes proceeded from the development of perfectionist religious theories to preach common marriage among the saints, a belief which, as practiced by Noyes and his followers at the Oneida Community, was popularly referred to as "free love." Though free love and the disruption of churches were of course widely condemned, it was difficult for the evangelical orthodoxy to distinguish its basic perfectionist beliefs from those of scandalous radicals.The combination of the term "perfectionism" with the advocacy of sexual promiscuity is a suggestive parallel to Jewish Cabalism. Adam Weishaupt's Order of the Illuminati was also known as the Perfektibilisten. We return to Perry:
The most notorious perfectionist was John Humphrey Noyes. Noyes had been brought up as an orthodox New Englander and educated in the 'New Divinity' at Yale." After a meeting with abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison, Noyes announced that he had retracted his allegiance to the United States government and now championed the claim of Jesus Christ to the throne of the world. He depicted the government as a fat libertine flogging Negroes and torturing Indians. . . . "My hope of the millennium," he wrote, "begins where Dr. Beecher's expires -- viz, at the overthrow of this nation."James Russell Lowell, a prominent abolitionist, explicitly advocated race-mixing, on the grounds that mulatto offspring would be more submissive -- more "Christian" -- than the White race. He wrote:
We have never had any doubt that the African race was intended to introduce a new element of civilization, and that the Caucasian would be benefited greatly by an infusion of its gentler and less selfish qualities. The Caucasian mind, which always seeks to govern, at whatever cost, can never come to so beautiful or Christian a height of civilization, as with a mixture of those seemingly humble, but truly more noble, qualities which teach it to obey.Abolitionist Henry C. Wright stated in 1857 what would become the actual agenda of the Reconstruction period:
A baptism of blood awaits the slave holder and his abettors. So be it. The retribution is just. Must the slave holders become the slaves of those whom they have enslaved? History answers "Yes." If slavery goes down in blood, the conquered will be the bondsmen and bondswomen of the conquerors; for the practical teaching of Church and State is, that might makes the right to enslave. Bid American slave holders beware! Their turn may come, will come, must come, to be bought and sold as brutes, and to have their wives and daughters consigned to the Negro's harem, unless they willingly and penitently let their slaves go free.It should be noted that, aside from the grotesque dream of forced miscegenation, Wright's vision is not essentially different from that of Karl Marx; it was an axiom of Marxist anarchism that workers were in fact slaves, who would one day change places with their masters.
Karl Marx had no mystical pretensions whatsoever; he called his ideology "dialectical materialism," incorporating a semblance of the Hegelian philosophy which was the popular, mainstream philosophy of that time.
One often hears patriotic broadcasters refer vaguely to "the Hegelian dialectic," as if Hegelianism itself were a tool of conspiracy. In fact, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels both stated repeatedly that the Hegelian dialectic, as espoused by Hegel, was not and could not be an instrument of conspiracy. I consider it important to exonerate Hegel because it appears as part of a general knee-jerk tendency to dump on the Germans whenever possible so as to appease the real perpetrators of the New World Order, the Jews.
Perhaps it is clear now why laissez faire is so widely touted by Jews like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand. Laissez faire and Marxism are not the opposites that most of our people assume them to be. Marxism actually goes farther than laissez faire, advocating a never-never land in which there is no government whatsoever.
The Captain of the Chicago Police, Michael J. Schaack, stated in his 1889 book Anarchy and Anarchists: a History of the Red Terror and the Social Revolution in America and Europe:
It [anarchism] is founded upon the teachings of Karl Marx and his disciples, and it aims directly at the complete destruction of all forms of government and religion. It offers no solution of the problems which will arise when society, as we understand it, shall disappear, but contents itself with declaring that the duty at hand is tearing down; that the work of building up must come later.When one considers that anarchism is, in fact, laissez faire carried a step farther, it becomes apparent that Marxism and the beloved laissez faire doctrine of today's so-called Conservatives are intimately related. The two philosophies are in fact striving toward the same impossible goal: a world without any constraints or conflict, and with plenty for everyone. The salient element in Marxism and laissez faire is the drive to abolish the constraints and the order of healthy White society. The bribe which these Jewish doctrines offer to their Gentile adherents is a license for self-indulgence In the name of laissez faire, our millionaires justify stabbing American workingmen in the back by importing workers from the non-White world. And under Marxist inspiration, the so-called "civil rights" movement was organized. Now, it is obvious that the so-called "civil rights" movement resulted in less freedom for White people, but it has on the whole, by its destruction of communities and social norms, increased the level of anarchy, in the sense of chaos, in our society.
Furthermore, although it did produce an expansion of government, the really significant thing is that the government has been perverted. The big government we have today is distinctly anti-White and is pernicious in ways that a pro-White government of equal proportions would not be. Indeed if an equally powerful state had been organized for the purpose of fighting off the enemies of our race, perhaps we would not have been conquered by infiltration as we have been today.
So the question of left and right is not a question of more or less government. The original "rightists," were supporting the big government (for its time) of Louis XVI, and the original "leftists" like Weishaupt advocated anarchy. But anarchism is always a transitional ideology; anarchy is a power-vacuum, and Nature abhors a vacuum. Ultimately, the question is whether we will live in a society ordered according to the character of our own race or according to the demands of that vastly different Middle Eastern race.
This anti-government attitude among patriots is understandable, because in the United States our experiences with big government are almost all bad. Really big government in the U.S. began with Franklin Roosevelt. In the U.S., more government has always meant more racially destructive policies. This is simply because of the malevolent entity which controls our government. A government that is truly of, by, and for our people would not be of that nature, so the axiom that big government is bad government would not necessarily apply.
The crucial question about government is whether it is run by and for our people, or whether it is run by and for the enemies of our people.
The last time America was culturally healthy was in the 1920s. Internationalism had been repudiated. The First World War had been recognized as a grievous mistake, and America's leaders were committed to keeping America out of any such future catastrophes. Eugenics as a national policy seemed entirely possible for the United States of the 1920s.
The last healthy epoch of America's existence was overturned by the Great Depression. The abrupt stock-market crash which heralded the Depression did not take the leaders of Jewry by surprise. Some have argued that the Jews used their control of credit through the Federal Reserve System, which they had in place from the days of their puppet Woodrow Wilson, to engineer the stock-market crash. Regardless of whether the Jews caused the crash, manipulated it, or merely had inside knowledge of it; evidence suggests that Bernard Baruch (an extremely wealthy Jewish speculator who had been one of the Jewish string pullers behind Wilson and virtual economic czar during World War I), knew exactly when the crash was coming. He abruptly pulled all his money out of stocks only a few days before the stock market crash, over the protests of his broker. After the crash, leading Jews were able to buy up American industry for practically nothing.
It is an old saw that money is the mother's milk of political campaigns. With their vastly increased share of the American pie, and with a smear campaign, the Jews were able to blame Herbert Hoover for the depression and replace him with their puppet Roosevelt, who had run as a Conservative but governed as a Marxist socialist and did not let the Constitution get in his way. Roosevelt was also notorious for stocking the executive branch with large numbers of Communists and Jews; many of whom remained for decades.
When Germany dispossessed the Jews, who had robbed them on a scale far more massive than in the United States, the Jews wanted revenge. Along the way, the Jews killed several birds with one stone. In order to discredit the eugenics movement which still had proponents in the United States, the Jews involved America in what amounted to a war against eugenics. It is said that a war makes any cause sacred, and the Second World War made the cause of doing the Jews' bidding sacred in this country. This false religion remains in place to this day.
Furthermore, the Cold War, with its focus on foreign aggression, diverted attention from subversion at home. Subversion in America advanced most rapidly during the Cold War, especially during the Vietnam War, when patriotic Americans were afraid to complain too loudly lest the country appear further divided in the face of its foreign foe.
At the same time, the Cold War's constant focus on a foreign menace caused people to overlook the treason in their own government. It was the end of the Cold War that allowed America's racial consciousness to spring back to life -- in time to survey all the damage that treason had wrought in forty years. Not the least of this treason was the media's gradual brainwashing of our people, many of whom had learned to think of America only as the vehicle of a certain brand of universalism -- the liberal capitalist brand. This brand of universalism was then represented as the only alternative to Communism. The liberal capitalist world view, this phony neo-conservatism, was the rationale for NAFTA and for free trade with China: In a purely materialistic and economic world view, whether it be laissez faire or Communism, race and nation receive no consideration. It is an encouraging sign, however, that in spite of the brainwashing, the majority reaction was against NAFTA. This shows that part of America still has some will to live.
One would have to be brain-dead to believe that the motive for bringing these fast-breeding non-White populations into our homelands is in any way charitable, since any relief afforded to Mexico by emigration will quickly be cancelled by population increase. The population of Mexico doubles every nineteen years! Current policies will lead to the entire world being overpopulated with brown men and women.
As America becomes increasingly non-White, it will also become increasingly unfree. A people united by common blood and common values need few laws, few prisons, and few policemen to get along peaceably. Multicultural empires are not known for their freedom.
Non-White America, populated by mulattos and mestizos, will be easier for our enemies to control and exploit, and whatever White minority remains, if it adheres to the representative process, will be perennially behind the eight-ball, always outvoted by racial aliens being manipulated by our enemies. It seems to me that those multiracial "Constitutional" patriots, who want us all to pretend that race doesn't matter, are leading their adherents in precisely this direction: toward a United States in which the Constitution is a revered artifact with even less influence than it has today.
We do not have to accept this fate, nor will the fight be impossible! Louis XVI and Czar Nicholas II died because they lacked the will to resist and didn't even really try. We understand what is happening. A highly motivated and disciplined minority can change the course of history. It has happened before. In fact, it has seldom happened any other way.
We have every reason to fight, and no incentive whatsoever to give up, for the loss of our race means the loss of everything. The struggle itself will make us strong!
Editor's Note: All five parts of the original radio broadcast are contained in this issue of Free Speech. Due to space limitations, and to avoid repetition, more editing than usual was required. The audio tapes of this series contain the complete shows as originally broadcast. These tapes are available for the special price of $50.00 postpaid.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page