Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
But the Clinton government needs these programs. Signing up a million immigrants, nearly all of them non-White, so that they could vote in the 1996 Presidential contest, was important to Mr. Clinton's re-election. And to keep them voting Democratic the government needs to reward them with programs like affirmative action. So the Clinton government has denounced White opposition to these programs as "racial hatred" and is hoping that that label will intimidate opponents of the Clinton racial programs into silence.
That's a clever tactic by Mr. Clinton and the media, but it's also a typically crooked tactic. There are very few White Americans who are in favor of racial hatred -- or hatred of any sort. We are not by nature haters. Most of us don't approve of it. Mr. Clinton and the media bosses understand that, and that's why they always begin talking about "hate" when they want to shut up their opponents. They want the public to believe that any opposition to the government's racial programs is "hate."
Now, the truth of the matter is that while most White Americans don't want to be thought of as "haters," most of us also don't want more non-Whites crammed down our throats by the government and the media. That's not because we're "haters"; it's because we know a few things about non-Whites. We know enough to be quite sure that we don't want or need any more of them in our society. We don't want to mix with them -- not because we are a bunch of hateful bigots, as the controlled media and Mr. Clinton would have everyone believe, not because we are full of blind prejudice, but because we know a few things about non-Whites. We know about their proclivity to murder, rape, and steal, for example.
When I say something like that on a radio talk show, I get howls of protest from the Politically Correct host. "You're worried about murderers?" the host screeches. "What about Timothy McVeigh? He murdered 168 people, and he's about as White as they come." This is supposed to embarrass me into silence. It 's the same sort of barroom debating tactic they use when I begin talking about the Jewish control of the news and entertainment media. Then the Politically Correct host will say, "Jewish media control? What about Ted Turner? He's not a Jew."
No, Ted Turner isn't a Jew, but he has a Jewish boss, because Ted Turner's CNN is a subsidiary of Gerald Levin's Time-Warner media empire. And Timothy McVeigh didn't even put a dent in the racial crime statistics.
Those racial crime statistics are gathered by Mr. Clinton's FBI, because the FBI believes it they can do its job better if it understands what's happening. The controlled media don't like to talk about those statistics, of course, but they are a matter of public record, and any citizen can get them from the Department of Justice. The latest figures I have are for 1995, and they come from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report.
This supplementary report contains data from those states which break down their crime reports into White, Hispanic, Black, Asian, and American Indian categories. This is important, because many states lump Whites and Hispanics together in the "White" category, so that what such states report as "White" crime is actually White and Hispanic crime. I've taken the data just from those states which break down their crime reports into White, Hispanic, Black, Asian, and American Indian in order to be able to make the most accurate and meaningful comparisons between White crime and non-White crime. What these data show is that in 1995 Asians in the United States committed murders at a rate 1.23 times the White rate. Another way of saying this is that if in a group of one million White people 100 of them committed a murder in 1995, then in a group of one million Asians 123 of them committed a murder in 1995. That is, Asians are 23 per cent more likely to commit murder than Whites are.
That's interesting, because the impression deliberately fostered by the media is that Asians are more law-abiding than Whites. That may have been true 50 years ago, when Asians were a very tiny minority in America and tended to be on their best behavior. Now that we have a lot more of them here and they feel more at home, they are showing their true natures.
American Indians also are more murderous than Whites. They commit murders at twice the White rate.
But that's nothing compared to the Hispanics. They commit murders at 4.8 times the White rate. A Hispanic is nearly five times as likely as a White person to be a murderer.
And, as you might have guessed, Blacks take the prize for murderousness. They are 10.1 times as likely as Whites to commit murder. Is it any wonder that most of us don't want Blacks in our schools, our neighborhoods, or our workplaces?
You would hardly guess any of this from listening to Mr. Clinton or reading any of the controlled newspapers. They like to talk about things like the burning of Black churches or other offenses they can attribute to White "haters." They certainly don't like to talk about the fact that Blacks are far more violent and commit far more crimes than Whites. In fact, every non-White group in America is more criminal and more violent than Whites. But when Mr. Clinton talks about "hate crimes" he's talking about crimes committed by Whites against non-Whites. That's the kind of crime he wants you to believe is the big problem in America. That's the kind of crime he hints is keeping Blacks and Whites apart. If we could just keep those White "haters" from committing their "hate crimes," he suggests, then we could "pull America together."
One of the goals Mr. Clinton has announced for his program to "pull America together" is "making sure that the American people have facts, not myths, upon which to base their judgments about people of different colors and backgrounds."
But do you really believe that Mr. Clinton is going to give the American people facts about the racial differences in crime rates? I don't believe it. I think Mr. Clinton is just telling us one more lie when he promises us facts. I think that the only things Mr. Clinton will be telling us are tales designed to dampen the resistance of White people to racial mixing.
Mr. Clinton isn't the only one who is lying to us when it comes to racial matters. On June 14 Mr. Clinton gave the commencement speech at the San Diego campus of the University of California, and he used the speech to push his anti-hate campaign. The Associated Press report on that speech stated that Mr. Clinton's governmental appointments "mirror ethnic and racial percentages of the national population."
That is not true. In particular, Mr. Clinton has appointed Jews to government positions at more than ten times their percentage of the national population. That's another fact that we won't be hearing from Mr. Clinton, because he would rather have us believe the myth that his appointments mirror the ethnic and racial percentages of the national population.
In his June 14 speech to students in San Diego, Mr. Clinton made the biggest plea yet to keep the affirmative action programs which bring Blacks into universities in far larger numbers than would be the case if admission were determined by academic performance. Affirmative action has been rejected overwhelmingly by the voters, but Bill Clinton, for obvious reasons, doesn't want to end it. Blacks voted overwhelmingly for him in both of his Presidential campaigns, and he wants to keep them on his side.
Do you want to know what causes racial hostility? Do you want to know what causes Whites to resent Blacks? More than anything else, it has been affirmative action. Whites -- even Whites who never think about crime statistics -- resent programs which give Blacks an advantage over them. They resent having academic standards lowered and work performance standards lowered just to make it easier for Blacks. Bill Clinton is a master of misdirection and deceit. He promotes programs which cause racial hostility, and at the same time, in the same speech, he blames this hostility on White racists.
In his San Diego speech Mr. Clinton looked out over the graduating students, among whom there were a great many Blacks, nearly all of them there through affirmative action programs, and he put on his best used-car salesman's smile, and he said to the White students, "Now, you be honest with yourselves, and you'll know that you learned a lot more here than you would have if all of the students had looked like you." What a line of baloney! Of course, the media people there -- and the Blacks -- loved that line. But if any of the White students had the courage to buck the pressure to conform and were honest with themselves, what could they say they learned by having the campus packed with affirmative action Blacks? How to cope with the threat of rape on the campus? How to minimize the chance of being mugged if they had to go to the library after dark? Well, yes, those are useful things to know in the sort of place America is becoming under the Clintonistas.
Everyone understands that the White students learned a lot less in an affirmative action university than they would have learned in an all-White university, because the standards have been lowered to accommodate the Blacks. Of course, to the trendy, liberal, air-head types who applauded Mr. Clinton's line of baloney, the really important things to be learned at a university aren't chemistry, mathematics, biology, and history. The important things are learning how to get along in a multiracial world: learning how to smile ingratiatingly and step out of the way when Black ball-players on scholarship come swaggering down a campus sidewalk, learning how to be sensitive and never say anything which minorities might find offensive, learning how to apologize for being White.
It would be bad enough if Mr. Clinton's deceitful campaign to "pull America together" were nothing more than the use of his office as President to promote his multiracial agenda through media events like his speech in San Diego, trying to bully and intimidate the opponents of affirmative action and immigration reform into silence. However, Mr. Clinton's speeches are only one facet of a war against White America that the Clintonistas are waging. The Clinton speeches -- and the favorable media publicity they receive -- are intended to persuade the public that what keeps America from being pulled together are the activities of what the Clintonistas call "hate criminals."
Their definition of a "hate criminal" is any White person who acts or speaks in opposition to their program to continue increasing America's racial "diversity" and racial togetherness. When Mr. Clinton is not trying to salvage his affirmative action schemes and prevent immigration reform, he warns of the need for a crackdown on "hate crime." He cites a few examples of what he means by "hate crime": a homosexual beaten up, a swastika daubed on the door of a Jewish university student, vandalism of a house in a White neighborhood after the house is sold to Blacks. All of his examples just happen to involve alleged actions by Whites. In an announcement from the White House just a week before his San Diego speech, Mr. Clinton said: "It is time for us to mount an all-out assault on hate crimes, to punish them swiftly and severely, and to do more to prevent them from happening in the first place."
We will be hearing much stronger calls for new laws against so-called "hate crimes" as Mr. Clinton's campaign to "pull America together" progresses. We will see a new facet of the campaign emerging: a call for criminalizing Politically Incorrect speech -- what the Clintonistas call "hate speech." It's hard to see how new laws against vandalism or beating up homosexuals can accomplish much, since vandalism and assault already are illegal and have been for a long time. It doesn't really help their campaign much to elevate these offenses from the realm of ordinary crimes to the realm of political crimes -- and you know, really, that's exactly what all of these so-called "hate crimes" are: they are political crimes. What the Clintonistas are aiming at is outlawing Politically Incorrect speech. Everything else is window dressing.
This whole campaign to intimidate Politically Incorrect Americans -- so-called "hate criminals" -- began 20 years ago. In states such as New York and New Jersey where Jews exercised a very large degree of political control, Jewish pressure groups were able to have state laws passed against "hate crimes." In parts of the country where the spirit of freedom was stronger, however, the Jews were unable to persuade the local legislatures that a White man should be punished more severely for punching a Jew in the nose than for punching another White man.
Then in 1990 they succeeded in having a new Federal law enacted by the Congress. It was the so-called "Hate Crimes Statistics Reporting Act." This new law seemed innocuous enough at first glance. It merely required the Justice Department to gather statistics on a new category of crimes: namely, those defined by the Jews as "hate crimes." So the FBI was required to gather statistics from the whole country: how many homosexuals had been beaten up, how many Blacks had been chased out of White neighborhoods, how many Jews had had their shop windows smashed, how many lesbians had found offensive graffiti scrawled on their cars. No new punishments: just statistics.
The purpose of this law was to force the government to accept the idea of "hate crimes": the idea of a crime defined by what the offender was thinking when he committed an act rather than by the act itself. This whole notion of "hate crime," of thought crime, is offensive to the White man's sense of justice, to all of our legal traditions, but in 1990 the Jews succeeded in subverting that sense, in subverting that tradition. Once they had forced the country to accept the idea of thought crimes, they found it much easier to have actual legislation passed which set penalties for various acts based on what the offender was assumed to have been thinking at the time. And in order to establish what the offender was thinking, the government could examine his private correspondence. They could examine the ideological content of any books or magazines found in his residence. They could explore his religious, social, and political associations. All of these things could be used as evidence against him in court.
Now Mr. Clinton is explicitly and publicly pushing for a great expansion of these laws against thought crime, against political crime. The next step will be the criminalizing of Politically Incorrect thought itself, not just acts based on Politically Incorrect thought. The Jews long have been calling for laws outlawing books, radio programs, and any other expressions of Politically Incorrect opinion: what they cleverly call "hate speech." Before his term in office is finished, Mr. Clinton also will be calling for the criminalizing of "hate speech." That is what all of his current baloney about "pulling America together" is aimed at. That is what we must prepare ourselves to fight against with all of the means at our disposal.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page