Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page

Free Speech - August 1999 - Volume V, Number 8

Authoritarianism and Oz

by Dr. William Pierce

Three weeks ago we talked about the fact that America is divided into two camps that are moving in opposite directions ideologically. I pointed out that on one side is the Clinton coalition, which believes in democracy and equality and "diversity" at any cost and is stampeding happily and mindlessly toward the precipice of a non-White majority in America, and on the other side are the folks who are saying, "Whoa! Going over that precipice is not a good idea!"

All of us can see where the Clinton coalition is headed. Just turn on your television set. The Jewish propaganda is becoming more and more extreme. What the Jews are presenting as the norm today is much, much closer to the precipice than the norm they were presenting 10 years ago, or even five years ago. There is no doubt that they are moving, that they are stampeding the lemmings.

The movement of the people on the other side -- on our side -- away from the center is not as visible to most Americans, because we don't control television. But I see the unmistakable movement, as people who five years ago thought I was too extreme are today joining my organization, the National Alliance. I certainly haven't compromised or softened my position, but more and more perceptive and responsible Americans are realizing that the government in Washington is indeed out of control and is pushing us toward racial annihilation, and they realize that they must take a stand, that they no longer can ignore what's happening. And as I said, I am in a position where I can see this movement in my direction, as more and more of the most perceptive members of our society respond positively to my message.

The Jews, of course, also see this movement in my direction. That's why they make such a media circus out of a trifle like the case of the University of Indiana student Benjamin Smith shooting a Black and a Korean a few weeks ago, while their media ignore much more atrocious crimes which happen every day. That's why they're pushing so hard for firearms confiscation and for laws against what they call "hate speech." If the whole herd were stampeding in the direction the Jews want them to go, the Jews wouldn't get so excited about such matters. But the Jews understand that not everyone is going their way. They understand that more and more people are dropping out of their herd and coming my way, and it worries them; it worries them even though there still are far more people moving their way than my way.

Well, today let's not talk about people who're moving in our direction. Let's talk instead about the people who're the problem. Let's take a closer look at the people who're moving the way the Jews want them to go. And I don't mean the Blacks or the swarms of wetbacks coming across our southern border. I don't mean the growing portion of the population which consists of raceless mongrels, the consequence of the Jews' propaganda for miscegenation during the past generation. I don't even want to consider the portion of the White population which is on the dole and whose only real concern is the size of the checks or the other perks they receive from the government. Let's just look at the able-bodied White men and women who are earning their own keep but who have turned against their own people, their own race, and are going with the Jews.

Some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with such folks on a regular basis at work or in school; we have an opportunity to talk with them and to listen to them talking among themselves, and so we may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values. We may be able to understand what's wrong with them. All of us can watch television, and from that we can see which direction the Jews are pushing these people. And of course, what we see when we watch television is not some big-nosed Hollywood studio boss preaching to us and telling us that we ought to behave in a certain way and think in a certain way. What we see are actors and actresses that the viewers can identify with behaving in the prescribed way and saying the prescribed things.

My own situation does not bring me into close personal contact with many people who follow the Jews, and most of the television that I watch, other than the news, is something that a friend or a listener has recorded and sent to me because he believes that it contains something significant that I should see. But I do have a special window into the enemy camp. I receive a great deal of mail from listeners of every persuasion. Perhaps as much as a quarter of this mail is hostile, and I find it very interesting to read this mail and to try to understand what motivates the writers. Today I'll share with you a few of the tentative conclusions I've reached in this regard. And I stress the word "tentative," because this subject of human motivation is tricky and complex, and I'm not at all sure that what I'll tell you today will be the final word on the matter. And I should caution you that with all complex subjects my approach is to attempt to simplify the subject as much as I can, to try to get my mind around one or two key ideas before I start adding the refinements and complications.

Roughly half of all the hate mail I receive is explicitly Christian in some way. And if we look only at the mail from White haters, and don't even consider the letters from Jews, the Christian hate mail may run as high as 60 per cent. So what does that mean? Does that mean that there is something inherent in Christian doctrine which is responsible?

I don't think so, because 50 or 60 years ago most people who considered themselves Christians were not advocates of the policies the Jews are pushing today. One of my tentative conclusions, after studying a large number of these hate letters with Biblical references or some other Christian slant to them, is that what the writers have in common is a compulsion to think, speak, and behave in an approved manner. Most of these Christian hate letters come from people who are not very sophisticated and not well educated, judging from the ways in which they use the English language.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the people who hate us are all uneducated and unsophisticated. I also receive some hate letters from people who at least think that they are quite sophisticated. Whereas the Christians will tell me that I am going to hell because God hates people who criticize the Jews and then will cite some Bible verse to prove it, the sophisticates -- really, pseudo-sophisticates -- will sneer at me and tell me how stupid I am because I can't get it through my thick skull that all people are equal, that the color of a person's skin has nothing to do with his intelligence or creativity or anything else. And they also will cite some authority to prove their point -- not the Bible, but something they have seen on television or learned in class.

And of course, there are other sorts of hate letters. There are hate letters from the Birch Society types, who tell me that I am a communist because I am a racist and racism is a form of collectivism, just like communism. And these folks also will quote some authority to prove their point.

When I back away from all of these individual hate letters, when I don't think about their individual differences but instead look for common elements, what I see is authoritarianism. I see haters who are angry at me because I'm not marching in lockstep with them toward the precipice. Perhaps I'm misusing the word "authoritarianism." Perhaps other people have a different meaning in mind for the word than I do. I remember that back during the 1960s and 1970s the Jews used the term "authoritarian" as a pejorative. They used it to refer to people who stood in the way of their remaking of America.

The Jews called the people who objected to their pro-Viet Cong demonstrations "authoritarians." They called people who were not in sympathy with their so-called "civil rights" revolution "authoritarians." They called people who refused to adjust their moral standards to the new standards the Jews were pushing "authoritarians." In the 1960s and 1970s an authoritarian was an old-fashioned, not-very-bright person who frowned on the use of LSD and marijuana by high school kids. An authoritarian was a flag-waving Bible-thumper who deplored the changes in sexual mores the Jews were pushing and thought people who burned their draft cards ought to be sent to jail. An authoritarian was an inflexible, humorless, narrow-minded person: a bigot, a hater, a racist, an anti-Semite. He was an Archie Bunker. He was the sort of person who told a hippie to get a haircut and find a job. The Jews made hundreds of Hollywood films during that period in which the villain was an authoritarian.

Now, back during the 1960s I was trying to figure out what was going on. I didn't pay much attention to the psychology of it at that time, but I did notice the type of people the Jews were complaining about and denouncing as "authoritarians," the Archie Bunker type. I certainly wasn't on the Jews' side of what was happening then, but I can't say that I was on the authoritarian side either. I thought that the authoritarians were a little too uptight in their sexual attitudes, for example. I didn't have much sympathy with their Biblical arguments or their Constitutional arguments for opposing the changes the Jews were pushing. My impression was that their resistance to the Jews wasn't guided by much in the way of reason.

The Jews don't complain much about authoritarians these days. They don't bother to ridicule them the way they used to. Archie Bunker did his job and is now in retirement. But as I have been trying to understand the motivations of the people who send me hate letters today, I keep having flashbacks to the 1960s and 1970s, when I saw White Americans standing on street corners and yelling at college students of the Bill Clinton stripe who were marching down the street carrying Viet Cong flags. They would shout things like, "Go to Hanoi, you commie bastard!" The idea that keeps coming to my mind is that the people who were shouting that in the 1960s are the same sort of people who are sending me hate mail today.

I was a lot closer to agreeing with the 1960s-style authoritarians than I am to agreeing with those of the 1990s style. The 1960s authoritarians may not have been very bright, and they were wrong about some things. For example, most of the American college students marching for the Viet Cong in the 1960s weren't really communists; they were just shallow, spoiled, irresponsible, trendy brats doing what had been made fashionable on their campuses by the Jews. But those 1960s-style authoritarians were not basically destructive. They were not dangerous to our civilization or to our race. They were just pretty much thoughtless defenders of the status quo, defenders of what they had been taught was right and proper.

Today's authoritarians are a different matter. Their psychology may be the same as that of the 1960s authoritarians -- and like the authoritarians of 30 years ago they also aren't very bright -- but their cause is deadly. The 1990s authoritarians are out to destroy our civilization and our race, because they have been taught that that's the right and proper thing to do.

What's really interesting to me about all of this is what it tells us about the nature of our struggle, about what will work for us and what won't work. What won't work is trying to change the ideas or the ideology of most of the White men and women who are dancing to the Jews' tune and heading for the precipice now. We can't change their ideology because they really don't have an ideology. We can't reason with them because their behavior isn't based on reason. They are not defenders of equality and democracy and diversity because they really believe in those things. What they believe in is defending the status quo, defending what they have been persuaded all right-thinking people support and believe in, defending the Great God of the Tube. And of course, they believe in hating anyone who speaks against the Great God of the Tube, anyone who ridicules what the Great God of the Tube teaches, anyone who criticizes those authority figures who speak to them so convincingly from the tube every day.

One cannot change the allegiance of an authoritarian with any sort of reasoned argument. One can, of course, change the authority that he worships. One can change an authoritarian's direction by changing the status quo. Christians write me today and damn me to hell because I refuse to accept the fact that Jesus wants all the races to be mixed together. Christians with the same sort of mentality were writing hate letters 50 or 60 years ago to interracial couples and explaining to them that racial mixing is contrary to God's plan. The Bible hasn't changed. Christianity hasn't changed. But the sold-out preachers and sect leaders -- the authority figures for these Christians -- have changed the way in which they interpret Christianity for their flocks.

Authoritarians are not bad people just because they are authoritarians. In the Middle Ages they burned witches, but in the 1960s they would happily have burned communists. Today they would like to burn White racists. Authoritarians always are defenders of the status quo; they always are worshippers of authority. Whether their role in society is constructive or destructive depends on who the authority figures are. In trying to change authoritarians, one does not argue ideas with them; one changes their authority figures, if one can.

We should note that there also are White people moving in the Jews' direction today who are not authoritarians. There are people who are motivated by what they perceive as their self-interest. There are some businessmen, for example, who believe that non-White immigration and so-called "free" trade bring them more profit. There are some people -- White men -- who can justify anything which brings them a profit or helps their careers. There's not much point in arguing ideas with these people either. The only argument that they will understand is one which is to the effect that they will lose a lot more than profit or a career if they persist in their present ways. And one should not try to make that argument until it can be made convincingly.

And there are many White people who are neither amoral businessmen nor authoritarians -- at least, not authoritarians in the religious sense, not in the sense of worshipping authority -- but who do tend to go with the flow, who do tend to do whatever is fashionable or trendy at the moment. We don't get many hate letters from these people, because they don't have strong convictions, one way or the other. But there are lots of them, and it may be worthwhile to argue with some of them.

A conclusion we might draw from what I've said today is that we won't win many of our benighted White brethren away from the Clinton coalition with ideas or reasoned argument: some, but not many. They certainly can be won over, but we don't have the means to do that at this time. Most of what we can hope to accomplish at this time is to help decent and reasonable men and women of good will -- men and women who never have been part of the Clinton coalition -- understand better the situation we all are in and the process which is carrying all of us to disaster; and then to motivate those with understanding to quit being spectators and to join us in an organized effort to take back our world. It is only through organization that we can acquire the means to begin making an impression on the trendies and the authoritarians and the careerists.

One final thought today, just in case some of you believe that I have exaggerated in talking about the urgency of our situation or the animalistic and mechanical nature of many of our fellow citizens. There's a television series called Oz which you ought to watch. It's on Home Box Office, HBO, which is a subsidiary of Time-Warner, headed by that nice Jewish boy Gerald Levin. The executive producer of the Oz series itself is another nice Jewish boy, Barry Levinson. I don't have access to HBO myself, but a friend recorded a few episodes and sent them to me. Like much of Jewish television, Oz is not very realistic, but it does provide a stark and graphic picture of where the Jews are pushing America, where they are pushing the lemmings. It is not at all subtle in telling us that homosexuals are sensitive and caring people; that Blacks are strong and intelligent; that Jews are noble, inoffensive, and long-suffering; that interracial sex is good and natural; and that racially conscious Whites are despicable and beastly.

This is a Jewish message aimed at the lemmings. It speaks to the lemmings directly from Mr. Levinson's black heart. And there is no doubt that the message has the desired effect on its White-trash viewers. If it didn't have good ratings, Gerald Levin wouldn't bother to poison the airwaves with it. The Jews, of course, always have been pushing in the same direction. But Oz shows us how far they have moved in that direction. Such a television series would have been inconceivable 10 years ago -- even five years ago. But today, with millions of mindless, trendy White kids in their backward baseball caps, singing the rap ditties they have been taught by other Jewish media bosses, trading basketball cards with their favorite Black sports heroes on them, Mr. Levin and Mr. Levinson have figured that they can get away with pushing a little further. And they are getting away with it.

So tune in to Oz. View a segment of it. Don't let yourself be offended by the language or the gutter-level imagery. Study it. Think about its message. Think about what is in the Jewish minds of the people producing this filth. Think about what these Jews are aiming for. And remember, this is not some obscure, underground production viewed by only a few warped fans. This is mainstream America. This is Home Box Office. This is Time-Warner. The people who produce this filth are the biggest financial contributors to the Democratic Party. They are the Jews who got Bill Clinton elected twice. And the people who watch it and like it are the people who kept Bill Clinton's popularity polls up during his impeachment. This is not some bad dream. This is real. This is what is happening today.

So now, what are you going to do about it? Why don't you write to me? Why don't you join the National Alliance and work together with me?

© 1999 National Vanguard Books · Box 330 · Hillsboro ·WV 24946 · USA

A cassette recording of this broadcast is available for $12.95 including postage from:
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946

Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page