National Vanguard http://nationalvanguard.org News. For us. For a change. Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:25:25 +0000 en-US hourly 1 What Are They Doing to Our World? http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/what-are-they-doing-to-our-world/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/what-are-they-doing-to-our-world/#comments Wed, 28 Jan 2015 02:07:51 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2094 Pacific Garbage Patch Satellite ImageEnvironmental quality, resources threatened by failing economy

by Dr. William L. Pierce

DURING 1981 the real spendable earnings of the average American wage earner fell another 3.3 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Washington announced on January 22. Of all the economic statistics monitored by the government — consumer price index, average hourly wages, etc. — the real spendable earnings figure is the one which is tied most directly to the average standard of living. It is the amount of real money (i.e., money adjusted for inflation) a wage earner has left to spend after taxes. (ILLUSTRATION: A satellite image of the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” that has expanded to twice the size of the continental United States. It is mostly made up plastic, the inevitable . . . → Read More: What Are They Doing to Our World?]]> Pacific Garbage Patch Satellite ImageEnvironmental quality, resources threatened by failing economy

by Dr. William L. Pierce

DURING 1981 the real spendable earnings of the average American wage earner fell another 3.3 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Washington announced on January 22. Of all the economic statistics monitored by the government — consumer price index, average hourly wages, etc. — the real spendable earnings figure is the one which is tied most directly to the average standard of living. It is the amount of real money (i.e., money adjusted for inflation) a wage earner has left to spend after taxes. (ILLUSTRATION: A satellite image of the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” that has expanded to twice the size of the continental United States. It is mostly made up plastic, the inevitable consequence of growing populations and unchecked mass production. This waste, what is left over from largely needless items used by an increasingly degenerate and low quality population, is thrown away with no sense of responsibility for the consequences.)

When we consider non-economic factors, however, we must anticipate a much worse decline in the American living standard than indicated by the falling figure for real spendable earnings.

The crime rate is an example of a non-economic factor which has a strong effect on the standard of living — or quality of life — of the average American. Each year the average U.S. citizen’s chances of being murdered, raped, robbed, or burgled increase. That costs everyone money, whether he is a crime victim or not, in higher taxes for police protection and in higher insurance rates. The non-monetary costs, though, are far higher, as fear of crime increasingly hedges in the average American’s life and restricts his activities.

Disease is another example. Until quite recently, the United States could boast one of the lowest disease rates in the world, with the rate for most infectious diseases continuing to fall each year. Many dread afflictions common in other parts of the world had been virtually eradicated here. This was one of the benefits of an enormous investment over the years in sanitation, inoculation drives, and other public health programs.

But now this benefit has begun to evaporate, largely as the consequence of an unchecked flow of non-White immigrants into the country. The tuberculosis rate in Los Angeles County was up 30 percent in 1981 over 1980, and similar increases were reported in other major metropolitan areas, resulting in a net increase in the tuberculosis rate for the entire country. Syphilis, leprosy, and other diseases associated especially with immigrants have also become much more common in recent years.

Extrapolating a few trends which, unlike the above, have not been much in the news recently gives us an even grimmer picture of what is happening to our world. Consider the American farm. It has been one of the nation’s greatest successes, producing more food per acre and per man-hour than has been accomplished on anywhere near as large a scale anywhere else in the world.

This success, however, has had a cost. The extremely high yields of American agriculture have been the result of a very intensive approach to farming, depending on a complex industrial infrastructure. Without a dependable supply of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and the ready use of a vast rail and road transportation network, such intensive farming would not be possible.

The danger in such dependence is that it is susceptible to catastrophic disruption. A major breakdown in the transportation network, for example, would very quickly cause widespread starvation in many of the nation’s heavily urbanized areas. America long ago lost its regional self-sufficiency in agriculture, and most of the Northeast now imports more than 70 percent of its food from other states.

Dirtier air is just one of the penalties Americans will pay for a worsening economic situation. As fuel costs continue to rise and unemployment mounts, the political pressure for scrapping environmental protection laws will increase. The use of high-polluting fuels, restricted now, will grow, and the lack of effective pollution control equipment increasingly will be excused or overlooked.

Dirtier air is just one of the penalties Americans will pay for a worsening economic situation. As fuel costs continue to rise and unemployment mounts, the political pressure for scrapping environmental protection laws will increase. The use of high-polluting fuels, restricted now, will grow, and the lack of effective pollution control equipment increasingly will be excused or overlooked.

Another cost of America’s intensive approach to farming is overuse of the best land, and its consequent loss. The trend in recent years has been to produce more and more food from less and less land, as urban encroachment on farmland and topsoil loss from erosion have reduced the acreage under cultivation. A growing population is causing an acceleration of this process, which means a continually increasing dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

The higher costs of food production associated with the greater use of fertilizers is also accelerating the trend away from small, family-owned farms toward giant agribusiness farming, because of the greater efficiency of very large farms. This in turn results in even less regional self-sufficiency and a greater dependence on the transportation network.

The United States is still able to produce more food than it consumes — about $40 billion worth was exported last year — but it is clear that the present trend toward more food from less land cannot continue indefinitely. There is a lack of general agreement as to when the crunch will come, but ecologists and agricultural experts are becoming increasingly concerned.

Lester Brown, head of the Worldwatch Institute, warns that the doubling of world food output since 1950 has been achieved only through severe land abuse. “Perhaps the most serious single threat humanity now faces is the widespread loss of topsoil,” he says in his new book, Building a Sustainable Society. Brown and others believe that the continuing loss of productive farmland in the United States could trigger food shortages before the end of this decade which would have a far greater impact on the population than the oil shortage of the 1970s.

Lester Brown, author of Building a Sustainable Society and founder of the Worldwatch Institute and Earth Policy Institute, is a very influential environmental analyst who has written more than fifty books about world-wide environmental issues of today.

Lester Brown, author of Building a Sustainable Society and founder of the Worldwatch Institute and Earth Policy Institute, is a very influential environmental analyst who has written more than fifty books about world-wide environmental issues.

Topsoil, of course, is only one of America’s natural resources being squeezed by a growing population. Fossil fuel is another, and the squeeze is leading inevitably toward the use of lower grades of coal and oil, which produce large amounts of air pollution.

For most of the last two decades the environmental lobby has been successful in forcing the Congress to enact laws to reduce pollution of air and water, protect wildlife, and prevent commercial exploitation or development harmful to America’s forests, marshlands, and other natural areas. It is now quite likely that everything which has so far been accomplished in the way of environmental protection will be undone in the 1980s.

One of the reasons for this setback is the philosophy of the supporters of the Reagan administration, typified by Secretary of the Interior James Watt, who seems to believe that it is sinful to leave trees uncut, fur-bearing mammals unskinned, or high-sulfur coal unburned, so long as there is money to be made for someone by exploiting these resources.

Reagan supporters are staunch advocates of growth at any cost, who see the value of everything in what it can be sold for. Many of them are incapable of even understanding why anyone would want to stop them from killing bobcats and raccoons, cutting down redwoods, paving over meadows, or saving a little money by dumping toxic wastes into the nearest stream.

Growth advocates are great optimists when it comes to the question of the depletion of natural resources, whether farmland, fossil fuel, or essential metal ores. They point out, quite correctly, that science has always been able to show us new ways to obtain greater utilization from old resources or has found new substitutes when old resources were finally exhausted.

What they tend to ignore are the additional costs involved when one is obliged to switch from easily obtainable, high quality resources to scarcer resources or to those of lower quality. One of these additional costs Americans will soon be paying is more air pollution, caused by a move to dirtier fuels.

Unfortunately, however, it is not just the Republican-capitalist types in the population who are responsible for what is being done to America’s environment and natural resources. The average citizen, when it comes to saving a tree or saving a dollar, all too often chooses the dollar — especially when he is worried about his supply of dollars, which inevitably will be the case even more in the future than it has been in the past.

As real spendable earnings continue to fall, protecting the environment will seem like an unaffordable luxury to more and more people, regardless of whether there is a Republican or a Democrat in the White House.

This forest is being destroyed by acid rain, a consequence of the continuing use by U.S. industries of high-polluting fuels, which pour millions of tons of sulfuric and nitric acids into the atmosphere from factory and power plant chimneys every year. Growing economic pressures will lead to even more use of such fuels in the future, and most U.S. forests and the wildlife in them will be increasingly threatened.

This forest is being destroyed by acid rain, a consequence of the continuing use by U.S. industries of high-polluting fuels, which pour millions of tons of sulfuric and nitric acids into the atmosphere from factory and power plant chimneys every year. Growing economic pressures will lead to even more use of such fuels in the future, and most U.S. forests and the wildlife in them will be increasingly threatened.

Depressing and frightening as are these economic and environmental prospects, they are all overshadowed by the racial prospect. There are few large cities left in the United States which have not witnessed a dramatic increase in non-White population since the Second World War. Most communities have not experienced Washington’s change from a three-quarters White city in 1940 to a three-quarters Black city today, or Miami’s change from 4 percent Hispanic to 40 percent Hispanic during the past 30 years (with a corresponding White drop from 83 percent to 44 percent), but the trend is the same everywhere: more Blacks, more Hispanics, more Asiatics, more Levantines.

Even were it not for the hundreds of thousands of these non-Whites coming into the country each year as legal immigrants or “refugees” and the estimated one million slipping in illegally, their prodigious birth rates — nearly twice the White birth rate, in the case of Hispanics — must inevitably lead to an environment which is more and more non-White.

Fools may babble endlessly all the trendiest clichés — “cultural enrichment,” “racial justice,” and so on — but the fact remains that the population of the United States is becoming uglier, less intelligent, less creative, less self-reliant, and less capable of sustaining a civilization or even maintaining its own national existence as it grows less White.

Is not the destruction of America’s racial basis an even greater sin against Nature than the destruction of the country’s forests and wildlife and the poisoning of its air and water?

National Geographic's interpretation of what a typical American will look like in 2060. The artist's rendition is based off of estimates by the The Office of U.S. Census, increased racial mixing and captured images of the current racial mix in America.

National Geographic‘s interpretation of what a typical American will look like in 2060

Is there any more terrible legacy we can leave to our descendants than a nation in which they are a minority, at the mercy of an irresponsible, incapable, and hostile mass of non-Whites?

The tragedy of what is happening to our world seems compounded by the knowledge that it need not happen: economic decline, environmental decline, and racial decline can all be reversed. But not unless those who wield the power in this country are at least able to face squarely and unblinkingly the causes of what is happening and have the will to tackle those causes.

Mr. Reagan and the other politicians certainly want to halt the economic decline, but that’s about all that can be said for them. The condition of the environment is clearly of very little concern to them, and they dare not even acknowledge the fact of racial decline.

Can one expect a President who reacted in the shamefully abject way Mr. Reagan did to the minority-liberal criticism of his recent announcement on tax exemptions for White schools to show even the least bit of courage in dealing with racial issues?

And since the declining moral and racial quality of the American population lies at the root of the declining economy, the prospects are hardly bright for a long-term solution to the one problem Mr. Reagan does want to solve. Fiddling with Federal budgets cannot give us a more productive labor force. Talking about “supply side” economics cannot reduce the vast financial burden of crime and social services associated with the enormous growth in racial minorities in America.

What the politicians are doing to our world — economically, environmentally, and racially — cannot be halted until we have men in charge who are not afraid to ask the right questions and face the real problems.

 * * *

From Attack! No. 85, 1982, transcribed by Anthony Collins and edited by Vanessa Neubauer, from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/what-are-they-doing-to-our-world/feed/ 0
Is Gun Control a “Nazi” Scheme? http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/is-gun-control-a-nazi-scheme/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/is-gun-control-a-nazi-scheme/#comments Wed, 28 Jan 2015 01:41:11 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2078 This article was originally published in National Vanguard Magazine.gun-control

by Dr. William Pierce

WITH GUN OWNERS increasingly aware of the Jewish leadership of the gun-banning movement, a group of Jews in Milwaukee claiming to be defenders of the Second Amendment have been noisily denouncing gun control as a “Nazi” scheme. The group, calling themselves Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, assert that Adolf Hitler was the father of all gun grabbers. The proof of this, they claim, was the German Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938, which was enacted by Germany’s National Socialist government. They have succeeded in persuading at least one magazine read by firearms enthusiasts to publicize their claims repeatedly (Guns and Ammo, May 1993 and March 1994).

The truth of the matter is that the 1938 German law specifically . . . → Read More: Is Gun Control a “Nazi” Scheme?]]> This article was originally published in National Vanguard Magazine.gun-control

by Dr. William Pierce

WITH GUN OWNERS increasingly aware of the Jewish leadership of the gun-banning movement, a group of Jews in Milwaukee claiming to be defenders of the Second Amendment have been noisily denouncing gun control as a “Nazi” scheme. The group, calling themselves Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, assert that Adolf Hitler was the father of all gun grabbers. The proof of this, they claim, was the German Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938, which was enacted by Germany’s National Socialist government. They have succeeded in persuading at least one magazine read by firearms enthusiasts to publicize their claims repeatedly (Guns and Ammo, May 1993 and March 1994).

The truth of the matter is that the 1938 German law specifically provided for the ownership and carrying of firearms, including handguns, by law-abiding German citizens. Jews, of course, were not German citizens — the National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms — and the law specifically barred Jews from having any role in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition or from being firearms dealers (but not from purchasing or owning firearms).

The German law certainly was not an ideal one from the viewpoint of today’s beleaguered American patriot, because it did have certain licensing requirements. A permit (Waffenerwerbschein) was required to buy a handgun (but not a long gun), and a separate license (Waffenschein), good for three years, was required to carry any firearm in public. Actually, the German law was less restrictive than most state and local laws in the United States were before the current campaign to nullify the Second Amendment shifted into high gear in 1993. More significantly, it ameliorated a law which had been enacted ten years earlier by a Left-Center government hostile to the National Socialists (the government headed by Wilhelm Marx and consisting of a coalition of Socialists and Catholic Centrists). The 1938 law irritated the Jews by pointedly excluding them from the firearms business, but it clearly was not a law aimed at preventing the ownership or use of firearms, including handguns, for either sporting or self-defense purposes by German citizens. As noted above, it actually relaxed or eliminated the provisions of a pre-existing law.

The facts, in brief, are these:

* The National Socialist government of Germany did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had.

* The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self-reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was alien to National Socialism.

* Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany five years before the National Socialists gained power. Five years after they gained power they got around to rewriting the gun law enacted by their predecessors, substantially ameliorating it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; and the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years). They may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but they had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms.

The highlights of the 1938 German Weapons Law (which in its entirety fills 12 pages of the Reichsgesetzblatt with legalese), especially as it applied to ordinary citizens rather than manufacturers or dealers, follow:

* Handguns may be sold or purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue. Muzzle-loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement.

* Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun.

* A hunting license authorizes its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns.

* Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years.

* Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein). A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range.

* A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:

  1. persons under the age of 18 years;
  2. legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;
  3. Gypsies or vagabonds;
  4. persons under mandatory police supervision (i.e., on parole) or otherwise temporarily without civil rights;
  5. persons convicted of treason or high treason or known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state;
  6. persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation, were legally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since the term of imprisonment.

* The manufacture, sale, carrying, possession, and import of the following are prohibited:

  1. “trick” firearms, designed so as to conceal their function (e.g., cane guns and belt-buckle pistols);
  2. any firearm equipped with a silencer and any rifle equipped with a spotlight;
  3. cartridges with .22 caliber, hollow-point bullets.

That is the essence. Numerous other provisions of the law relate to firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers; to acquisition and carrying of firearms by police, military, and other official personnel; to the maximum fees which can be charged for permits (3 Reichsmarks); to tourists bringing firearms into Germany; and to the fines and other penalties to be levied for violations. (A full text and translation of these German gun laws was published by Dr. Pierce in a booklet entitled Gun Control in Germany 1928-1945. To download and read this document click here.)

guncontrolingermany

This booklet, published by Dr. Pierce in 1994, compared and contrasted German gun laws in effect under the Weimar Republic and later the National Socialist Government that followed.

The requirements of “trustworthiness” and of proof of need when obtaining a permit are troubling, but it should be noted that they were simply carried over from the 1928 law: they were not formulated by the National Socialists. Under the National Socialists, these requirements were interpreted liberally: a person who did not fall into one of the prohibited categories listed above was considered trustworthy, and a statement such as, “I often carry sums of money,” was accepted as proof of need.

The prohibitions of spotlight-equipped rifles and hollow-point .22 caliber ammunition were based on considerations that the former were unsporting when used for hunting, and the latter were inhumane.

It was not until 1945, when the communist and democratic victors of the Second World War had installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that German citizens were denied the right to armed self-defense.

Despite these facts, there are a number of people among those who support Second Amendment rights who have fallen for the Jewish trick of associating gun-grabbing with Hitler and the National Socialists. These people sometimes make such statements as, “The first thing Hitler did when he came to power was round up all the guns.” Such statements are demonstrably false, and when they are made by a person who genuinely supports Second Amendment rights they reveal the person’s ignorance or dishonesty. When they are made by a Jewish group it is clear that their intent is to confuse the public and deceitfully deflect blame from their fellow Jews.

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/is-gun-control-a-nazi-scheme/feed/ 0
Natural Foods and Health http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/natural-foods-and-health/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/natural-foods-and-health/#comments Wed, 28 Jan 2015 01:29:23 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2102 Various_grainsby Dr. William Pierce

IN ANY COMMUNITY, a stranger who wants an introduction to local right-wing circles needs only walk into the nearest “health food” store. There, among the shelves of sunflower seeds, dried seaweed, and wheat germ he is sure to rub elbows with any number of LOLITS (Little Old Ladies In Tennis Shoes), Minute Men, Birchites, and others of a generally rightist hue — and perhaps a few SDS’ers too, for many members of the New Left have also shown a growing interest in so-called health foods in the last couple of years.

Certified Crackpots

Unfortunately, he will also meet his fill of diet faddists, religious weirdoes, certified crackpots, and even a few paranoiacs who are dead certain that all food preservatives and chemical additives are part of a communist plot . . . → Read More: Natural Foods and Health]]> Various_grainsby Dr. William Pierce

IN ANY COMMUNITY, a stranger who wants an introduction to local right-wing circles needs only walk into the nearest “health food” store. There, among the shelves of sunflower seeds, dried seaweed, and wheat germ he is sure to rub elbows with any number of LOLITS (Little Old Ladies In Tennis Shoes), Minute Men, Birchites, and others of a generally rightist hue — and perhaps a few SDS’ers too, for many members of the New Left have also shown a growing interest in so-called health foods in the last couple of years.

Certified Crackpots

Unfortunately, he will also meet his fill of diet faddists, religious weirdoes, certified crackpots, and even a few paranoiacs who are dead certain that all food preservatives and chemical additives are part of a communist plot to poison America. This fringe element has, in fact, rather colored the public’s mental image of the average health-food consumer, giving a somewhat crankish or oddball aspect to the whole health-food picture.

This is a shame, because there are interesting implications to the recent surge in the popularity of health foods, particularly those which also fall in the category of “natural” foods.

It is easy to see this trend as a growing rejection, on the part of the more sensitive elements in the population, of our over-organized, over-crowded, over-adulterated, over-mechanized, over-synthesized, over-polluted civilization; as a yearning for the simple instead of the complex, for the natural or “real” instead of the artificial or “plastic,” for the plain and homely instead of the slick and gimmicky, for the pure and pristine instead of the preserved and refined.

But is there, perhaps, more to it? Is man’s instinct for survival, as well as his esthetic outrage, asserting itself? One might almost suspect that to be the case, in the light of recent studies by UCLA anthropologist R.D. McCracken.

Man a Meat-Eater

Ancient man, according to McCracken, was a healthier animal than modern man — at least where his eating habits are concerned. Before the advent of agriculture, a bare 10 millennia ago, man lived on a diet of fish, game, edible roots and berries, and fruit. This was his diet during a period of millions of years-many thousands of millennia — as he evolved from his subhuman primate ancestors.

Thus, his body chemistry had ample opportunity, through the slow process of mutation and natural selection, to adapt itself perfectly to this diet.

Then, almost overnight on the evolutionary time scale, man’s diet underwent a radical change. Instead of meat and fruit, cereal grains — the produce of agriculture — became his staple.

And this change, says McCracken, played havoc with man’s body chemistry: “The carbohydrates, or starches, are an unnatural diet for him.”

McCracken traced the rise in prevalence of a long list of degenerative diseases, including heart disease, stroke, schizophrenia, alcoholism, and some forms of diabetes and cancer, to man’s increasing ingestion of grains and other high-carbohydrate foods — such as sugar.

“Two hundred years ago the per-capita consumption of sugar in England was about 7 1/2 pounds a year,” he said. “Today it is 120 pounds.”

He pointed out that it is precisely during the last century or so that almost all the degenerative diseases have assumed such devastating importance in the morbidity and mortality statistics.

It is comforting to think that we now have scientific backing for our vague and undefined feeling that the highly artificial nature of modern man’s selection of edibles is somehow “wrong.”

* * *

From Attack! Issue No. 3, 1971, transcribed by Michael Olanich, from The Best of Attack! And National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/natural-foods-and-health/feed/ 0
Jeffrey Epstein: More Light http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/jeffrey-epstein-more-light/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/jeffrey-epstein-more-light/#comments Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:00:25 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2104 Jeffrey_Epstein_and_Alan_Dershowitz

American Dissident Voices broadcast of January 24, 2015

Listen to the broadcast

by Kevin Alfred Strom

THERE ARE a lot of names in Jeffrey Epstein’s “little black book.” Epstein is the billionaire Jewish oligarch who used hundreds of White teen girls, some as young as 12, as sex slaves, and traded their sexual services to the rich and powerful in exchange for who knows what favors — and then claimed the ultimate favor when he was caught: the favor of a sweetheart non-prosecution deal. I covered the basics of his sex slave operation on last week’s program. (ILLUSTRATION: Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz, both charged in a civil filing with sexual abuse of White high school girls.)

Epstein’s contact book was made public by the oligarch’s former “house man,” Alfredo Rodriguez. . . . → Read More: Jeffrey Epstein: More Light]]> Jeffrey_Epstein_and_Alan_Dershowitz

American Dissident Voices broadcast of January 24, 2015

Listen to the broadcast

by Kevin Alfred Strom

THERE ARE a lot of names in Jeffrey Epstein’s “little black book.” Epstein is the billionaire Jewish oligarch who used hundreds of White teen girls, some as young as 12, as sex slaves, and traded their sexual services to the rich and powerful in exchange for who knows what favors — and then claimed the ultimate favor when he was caught: the favor of a sweetheart non-prosecution deal. I covered the basics of his sex slave operation on last week’s program. (ILLUSTRATION: Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz, both charged in a civil filing with sexual abuse of White high school girls.)

Epstein’s contact book was made public by the oligarch’s former “house man,” Alfredo Rodriguez. Rodriguez was arrested and served time after he failed to turn the book over to prosecutors and instead tried to sell it to attorneys involved in the case. Rodriguez said that the book would be invaluable in discovering the full extent of Epstein’s sex operations, which covered at least three states and two continents. Rodriguez stated that he had circled the names of individuals who either participated in — or witnessed — the sexual abuse that took place at Epstein’s multiple mansions, private jets, and private island; those who would in some way be valuable material witnesses in the case.

Alfredo Rodriguez

Alfredo Rodriguez

The “little black book” reads like a Who’s Who of elite Jews and their Gentile figureheads, along with a list of dozens upon dozens of girls, listed by their first names and telephone numbers only, who were available to provide “massage services” for Epstein and his wealthy friends in the Virgin Islands, in Paris, in New Mexico, in Florida, in New York City, and other locations. A couple of months ago, just before the Epstein case exploded in the headlines again, Rodriguez died. He was 60 years old.

Not including the much-discussed Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew, here are just a few of the well-known names in Epstein’s contact book:

Dr. Elie Wiesel, professional Jewish “holocaust survivor”; the late Senator Ted Kennedy, author of so much anti-White immigration and other legislation; the Jewish “advisor” to — and handler of — Presidents since the 1960s, Henry Kissinger; the Jewish senior Clinton adviser Ira Magaziner; Fox News founder and hyper-Zionist Rupert Murdoch; Wall Street vulture and Jewish billionaire Ronald Perelman; Jewish comedienne Joan Rivers; ultra-wealthy Jewish bankers Edouard de Rothschild and Evelyn de Rothschild; the late Jewish banker Edmond Safra; Saudi Prince Solman; the late Jewish actor, director, producer, and neocon Ron Silver; the son of uber-oligarch George Soros, the wealthy Jew Peter Soros — whose name was circled, and Epstein had no fewer than ten contact numbers for him; the Black governor of the US Virgin Islands, Charles Turnbull; two different governors of New Mexico, where Epstein owned a huge estate, Bruce King and Bill Richardson; convicted Jewish insider-trader Sam Waksal; the late Jewish TV journalist Mike Wallace; Jewish TV personality Barbara Walters; Jewish Hollywood mogul Bob Weinstein; Jewish media “sex expert” Dr. Ruth Westheimer; Israeli leader Ehud Barak (whose name was circled; and for whom eight contact numbers were listed); hyper-aggressive Zionist lawyer Alan Dershowitz (whose name was also circled, and for whom 15 contact numbers were given); Jewish media mogul and former head of Disney Michael Ovitz; David Rockefeller; Donald Trump (whose name was circled and for whom 17 methods of contact were listed); Jewish businessman Les Wexner (whose name was circled and for whom an impressive 71 ways of contact were given); Jewish publisher Mortimer Zuckerman, whom Epstein could contact in any one of 21 different ways; and many, many more. You can read them at nationalvanguard.org.

Epstein’s “little black book” also has 26 entries listed under the title Jeffrey’s “Apartments for Models,” including one for “Jean-Luc [Brunel] and guest,” “301 E 66th St. NYC.” Brunel, who ran a modeling agency, has been named as a sexual predator himself and procurer of underage girls for Epstein. Court documents show that the “301 E. 66th” address is for condos owned by Epstein, where girls trafficked into the US by Brunel for Epstein would be housed. Epstein reportedly even had the audacity to charge the young girls rent while they were being abused.

Vanity Fair columnist Michael Wolff met Epstein in the late 1990s, when he was invited to fly on Epstein’s private Boeing 727. He says “It was all a little giddy. There’s a little food out… after fifteen to twenty minutes, Jeffrey arrives. This guy comes onboard: He was my age, late forties, and he had a kind of Ralph Lauren look to him, a good-looking Jewish guy in casual attire. …And he was followed onto the plane by—how shall I say this?—by three teenage girls not his daughters….”

Wolff saw Epstein’s offices too, where his mysterious financial dealings made him worth some $2 billion. Wolff said “It’s an incredibly strange place. It has no corporate affect at all. …the trading floor is filled with guys in yarmulkes. Who they are, I have no idea. They’re like a throwback, a bunch of guys from the fifties. So here is Jeffrey in this incredibly beautiful office, with pieces of art and a view of the courtyard, and he seems like the most relaxed guy in the world. You want to say ‘What’s going on here?’ and he gives you that Cheshire smile.”

Epstein’s Florida estate was on posh Palm Beach Island — but the teen girls he abused were mostly from across the water in West Palm Beach, where working- and middle-class Whites worked hard, sent their children to public schools, and lived in very modest homes, sometimes even trailers. In those schools, Epstein’s procurers were at work. One, older teenager Haley Robson, had “massaged” Epstein just once but agreed to lure younger girls to him for $200 for each successful “recruitment.” Robson was one of many young female procurers who sought ought White female teens at restaurants, malls, and schools. According to New York magazine, “Skinny, beautiful young girls were approached by other girls, who said they could make $200 by massaging a wealthy man, naked. Robson said Epstein had told her the younger the better… The rules were simple. Tell him you’re 18. There might be some touching; you could draw the line. ‘The more you do, the more you are paid.’ A couple of the girls said they went all the way into the experience—one told police she visited 50 times, another hundreds of times, both having sex with Epstein and Nada Marcinkova, a then-19-year-old beauty who Epstein told one of them was his ‘sex slave'; he’d purchased her from her family back in Yugoslavia.” There were hundreds of these girls. The Palm Beach police uncovered 40. Epstein demanded their services, sometimes several at a time, often several times a day. Some girls reported being used by Epstein literally hundreds of times each. Two of the girls, who’d just made $500 in one weekend with Epstein, reportedly crowed in their abuser’s limo on the way home that “We’ll soon be rich!” But such giddy optimism didn’t always last, nor did it always occur — many victims reported remorse, tears, depression, and shame after being manipulated by Epstein and his “team,” performing innumerable sex acts for Epstein and his “friends,” and deceiving their own families.

Let’s talk for a moment about these teenage daughters of White working families. Obviously these teens were no match for Epstein, Maxwell, and his sophisticated team of procurers — who had mastered the art of manipulating these star-struck, troubled, or destitute schoolgirls. That’s why there are laws against child sex, and child trafficking, and sexual slavery. But with Epstein and Co., we have to consider the disparity in economic power too. Jeffrey Epstein is reportedly worth some $2 billion. These schoolgirls probably own nothing, and many of their families next to nothing. It’s been said that many working people, these days, are literally driving their net worth to work every day. With the mounting debt that characterizes our banker-ridden society, many working families probably have a negative net worth. But, for the sake of illustration, let’s assign these abused girls a net worth of $20,000 — or a ratio of .00001 compared to Jeffrey Epstein’s wealth.  That means that when generous Jeff paid them $200 to abuse their innocence and “massage” him, it was to Epstein the equivalent of 0.2 cents per sex session, when compared to the girls’ economic position. Epstein’s thrice-daily sessions cost him the equivalent 0.6 cents per day, 4.2 cents per week — less than $2.25 per year for over a thousand sex sessions with innumerable teenage White girls. And here’s another way to look at Epstein’s wealth: If you found yourself accused of a serious crime, you’d quickly find that good legal representation, including an aggressive investigative team, could easily cost you a quarter of a million dollars. To Jeffrey Epstein, that’s the equivalent of $2.50. A “dream team” of lawyers — like the one that got him off incredibly lightly for his crimes — might cost ten times that amount. But if we compare his wealth to that of his accusers, the cost of the Dershowitz-Ken Starr “dream team” was just like 25 bucks.

During the initial case back in 2005, Epstein’s friend — and, according to witnesses, co-abuser of young White girls — Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz spearheaded a team of private eyes who looked into the backgrounds of prosecutors, police, and the girls themselves. He provided police and the state attorney’s office with comments from a few of the victims on the social media site Myspace, where they admitted to drug and alcohol use and made a few sexual remarks. He found out one troubled teen victim had been in trouble for stealing from a Victoria’s Secret store. Epstein’s legal team reportedly harassed the family of one 14-year-old victim before her grand jury testimony. Palm Beach police stated that victims were contacted and told “Those who help [Epstein] will be compensated and those who hurt him will be dealt with.”

And, after the “dream team” negotiated with local and federal authorities for Epstein, the strangest part of the “Non-Prosecution Agreement” that resulted was that Epstein actually welcomed civil suits by the victims against him — doubtless hoping to pacify them with money so that no further criminal charges would ensue. And some seventeen victims were paid off — seven of them reportedly walking away with a million dollars each (to Jeffrey Epstein, the equivalent of ten dollars).

Barry Krischer

Barry Krischer

The Palm Beach police were apparently honest and uncorrupted, as pointed out by researcher Robert Morrow. Their investigations produced volumes of evidence proving that Jeffrey Epstein and his procurers were guilty of hundreds of sex crimes and other felonies. But the fix was in. Barry Krischer, the very Jewish state’s attorney for Palm Beach, refused to prosecute Epstein on any of the major charges, despite the evidence. The end result was that Epstein was only charged with a single count of “soliciting prostitution” — the same charge a man would get if he yelled “How much?” as he passed a cop posing as a street “hooker.” Only extreme public pressure forced the single charge to be upgraded to soliciting a minor for prostitution. The outraged police chief, Michael Reiter, asked to be removed from the case in protest. He wrote to the victims, telling them that justice was not being done. He accused Barry Krischer of being influenced by money (I would say it was also a case of tribal loyalty). He turned the case over to the federal Justice Department and the FBI, who promptly negotiated the infamous “Non-Prosecution Agreement” with Epstein’s legal team and filed no charges whatever in the case — and even immunized Epstein’s associates from any future prosecution; and sealed this highly irregular proceeding, making it secret.

This wasn’t the only time that Barry Krischer had let a Jewish sex criminal’s prosecution slide. According to witnesses, in November 2006 a Jew named Jason Shenfeld lured two young women to his bedroom, attacked them with a knife, bound them with duct tape, and forced them to perform sex acts by threatening to sic his pit bull on them if they did not. Rape-porn videos in which an attacker was portrayed raping women after binding them with duct tape were also found in Shenfeld’s possession. The women bore serious wounds from their ordeal. When the women told their story, state’s attorney Barry Krischer refused to prosecute Shenfeld, citing alleged inconsistencies in their accounts and some unflattering things in the young women’s backgrounds. Just five months after being released by Krischer, Jason Shenfeld attacked, raped, and murdered another young White woman, 18-year-old Amanda Buckley, who was found stuffed in Shenfeld’s closet, her body wrapped in bloody sheets, her hair stuck to duct tape, and her body severely bruised. After being raped, she died of strangulation.

Along with the FBI and Washington’s “Department of Justice,” Barry Krischer was instrumental in letting Jeffrey Epstein get away with his crimes.

dershowitz_01

Alan Dershowitz

One of Epstein’s friends told  New York magazine writer Philip Weiss that “[Epstein] thinks there’s an anti-Semitic conspiracy against him….” Epstein’s fellow Jew, close friend, and, according to at least one witness, co-participant in sexual abuse, Alan Dershowitz — also sees it that way. And so do Dershowitz’s supporters. One commenter at the Jewish Daily Forward, Rabbi Bernhard Rosenberg, puts it bluntly: “Alan Dershowitz is a scholar who has fought for Jews and Israel and for preserving the memory of the Holocaust. There is no truth to the accusations against him… I have never claimed to be G-d’s voice… but I know the anti-SEMITES and Anti-Zionists are enjoying this accusation, which will be proven in a court of law to be false. We Jews should speak up for one who defends Israel and the Jewish people.”

Dershowitz has claimed on television that he will seek the disbarment of the attorneys working for the victims in this case, and that he never saw anything improper, never met or saw any underage women at Jeffrey Epstein’s estates or on his airplanes, and that he only visited Epstein while in the constant company of his wife. But just yesterday, the passenger manifests of Epstein’s aircraft were released, and they show Dershowitz as a passenger on several occasions, without being accompanied by his wife, and on the same flights in which several female passengers were, curiously, listed only by their first names — “Hazel,” “Claire,” “Tatianna,” and others.

This is an affair, I think, in which the tragedy is behind us — the tragedy of the manipulation and abuse of young White women, which is all too common in our sick, declining society. But I predict it is going to end well. The victims’ current lawsuit may well succeed, exposing our “ruling class” Jews for what they really are, forcing a new prosecution, and exposing the deep corruption, by Jewish money and tribal loyalty, of our legal system and especially of the Washington regime’s wildly misnamed “Justice Department.” And, if the lawsuit does not succeed and the criminals once again walk free, the thoughtful and aware portion of our people — those who have followed this case with mounting horror and outrage — will never again look at Washington, or at the legal system, or at the Jews in quite the same way again. And that is a very positive development.

* * *

You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance, founded by William Luther Pierce in 1970. This program is published every week at whitebiocentrism.com and nationalvanguard.org. You can join and support us by visiting natall.com — or write to National Alliance, Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. We welcome your support, your inquiries, and your help in spreading our message of hope to our people. Once again, that address is Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on thinking free.

Listen to the broadcast

 

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/jeffrey-epstein-more-light/feed/ 3
Tom Watson: The Leo Frank Case http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/tom-watson-the-leo-frank-case/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/tom-watson-the-leo-frank-case/#comments Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:40:58 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2084 thomas-watson-statueOn the 100th anniversary of its original publication, we are pleased to present the first article about the Leo Frank case by populist reformer Thomas E. Watson from his Watson’s Magazine for January, 1915. (ILLUSTRATION: A view of the statue of Tom Watson that stood for nearly a century on the grounds of the Georgia capitol building. The legend on its base reads: “A champion of right who never faltered in the cause.”)

by Thomas E. Watson, Watson’s Magazine, Volume 20 Number 3, January 1915

AN AGED MILLIONAIRE of New York had a lawyer named Patrick, and this lawyer poisoned his old client, forged a will in his own favor; was tried, convicted and sentenced—and is now at liberty, a pardoned man.

Through the falling out among Wall Street thieves, it transpires that the sensational . . . → Read More: Tom Watson: The Leo Frank Case]]> thomas-watson-statueOn the 100th anniversary of its original publication, we are pleased to present the first article about the Leo Frank case by populist reformer Thomas E. Watson from his Watson’s Magazine for January, 1915. (ILLUSTRATION: A view of the statue of Tom Watson that stood for nearly a century on the grounds of the Georgia capitol building. The legend on its base reads: “A champion of right who never faltered in the cause.”)

by Thomas E. Watson, Watson’s Magazine, Volume 20 Number 3, January 1915

AN AGED MILLIONAIRE of New York had a lawyer named Patrick, and this lawyer poisoned his old client, forged a will in his own favor; was tried, convicted and sentenced—and is now at liberty, a pardoned man.

Through the falling out among Wall Street thieves, it transpires that the sensational clemency of Governor John A. Dix, in favor of Albert T. Patrick, was inspired by a mining transaction involving millions of dollars.

Patrick says, that he was “pardoned on the merits of the case.”

It was a negligible coincidence that his brother-in-law, Milliken, who had for years resisted the Wall Street efforts to get his Golden Cycle mine, yielded it, when Patrick got the pardon.

Such is life in these latter days, when Big Money makes and unmakes Presidents, makes and unmakes legislation, makes and unmakes the policies of the greatest Republic.

There was a man of the name of Morse; and he was a parlous knave, to be sure. He, also, lived in New York, and he was an adept in the peculiar methods of Wall Street.

To Charles W. Morse, it seemed good to organize an Ice Trust, and he did it. To prevent Nature from interfering too impertinently with his honest designs, he sent boats up the Hudson, to destroy the ice which was in process of formation on the river.

There is no law against the breaking of ice—so far as I know—and therefore the curses, the imprecations and the idle tears of the independent ice-dealers availed them nothing.

Summer came in due course; and with it came stifling heat in crowded tenements, the struggle for fresh air and the cool drink, and the sickness that pants for a chance to live. Charles W. Morse had the ice. Nobody else had any. Charles W. Morse made new rules for the ice market: he not only raised the price, but refused to sell any quantity of his frozen water for less than ten cents.

It seems a fearful thing that our Christian civilization should have reached a stage at which any one man, withholding a ten-cent block of ice, can condemn a sick child to death, but it is a fact. Unless the daily papers of New York and Jersey were the most arrant liars, the weaker invalids in the sardine-boxes, called tenements, died like flies.

Day after day, the editors pleaded with Morse, begging him to rescind the new rules and to sell to the poor the five-cent piece of ice that they had formerly been able to obtain.

The editorial appeals made to Morse might have softened the heart of the stoniest despot that ever sent human beings to the block, but they did not soften Charles W. Morse.

His relentless car was driven right on, day after day, week after week; and the victims that were crushed under his golden wheels, were pitiful little children.

Later, he made a campaign against the Morgan wolves of Wall Street, and he came to grief. The Morgan wolves turned upon him, and brought him down. His methods were the orthodox Morgan methods, but he was a poacher on the Morgan preserves; and so, he was sent to the penitentiary, not so much because he was a criminal, as because he was a trespasser.

Being in prison, Morse craved a pardon, and Abe Hummel was not at hand to get it for him. Abe was in Europe, for his health. Abe had got Morse a wife by the gentle art of taking her away from an older man. Morse had looked upon the wife of Dodge; and while doing so his memory went back to the time when King David gazed upon the unveiled charms of Bathsheba. Dodge could not be sent the way of Uriah, but the woman could be taken by the modern process of the divorce-court. Abe Hummel found the evidence; Abe managed the case; Abe mildly took a penitentiary sentence which rightly belonged to Morse; Abe spent a short while in prison, and Morse took Mrs. Dodge; Abe got out of jail and went to Europe—afterwards, Morse went to jail, and also went to Europe.

Morse was in the Atlanta penitentiary, and he was a very sick man. His lawyer said so; his doctor said so; the daily papers said so. Morse was suffering from several incurable and necessarily fatal maladies. His lawyer said so; his doctor said so; and the daily papers said so. Morse was a dying man; he had only a few days to live; his will had been made; the funeral arrangements were about complete; the sermon on the virtues of the deceased was in course of preparation; the epitaph was practically written; and all that Morse wanted was, that Dodge’s wife and his own should not have to bear throughout the remainder of her chequered existence, as the ex-wife of both Dodge and Morse, the bitter recollection that the man who took her from Dodge had died in prison.

Therefore, heavens and earth moved mightily for the pardon of Morse, the dying man. President Taft was so afraid that any delay might seem hard-hearted, and that Morse’s death in the penitentiary might haunt him with reproach the remainder of his life, he hurriedly pardoned one of the grandest rascals that ever was caught in the toils of the law.

Of course, the man was shamming all along; and with indecent haste he revealed himself as the robust, impudent, unscrupulous knave that he had been, when he was virtually murdering the destitute sick in New York.

These cases are cited because they are recent, and have been universally discussed. They are examples of what Big Money can do, when it has a fixed purpose to gull the public, influence the authorities, and use the newspapers to defeat Justice.

Let us now consider the undisputed facts in the case of Leo Frank, about whom so much has been said, and in whose interest Big Money has waged such a campaign of vilification against the State of Georgia.

Far and wide, the accusation has been strewn, that we are prejudiced against this young libertine, because he is a Jew. If there is such a racial dislike of the Hebrews among us, why is it that, in the formation of the Southern Confederacy, we placed a Jew in the Cabinet, and kept him there to the last? Why is it, we are constantly electing Jews to the State legislatures, and to Congress?

The law-partner of the best criminal advocate at our bar, is a Jew. I refer to Judge H.D.D. Twiggs of Savannah, and his able associate, Mr. Simon Gazan.

The law-partner of the Governor of Georgia, is a Jew. I refer, of course, to Mr. Benjamin Phillips, the partner of Hon. John M. Slaton.

The daughters of our best people are continually intermarrying with Jews; and Gentiles are associated with Jews in fraternal orders, volunteer military companies, banking and mercantile firms, &c., &c.

The truth of the matter is, that the lawyers and detectives employed to save Leo Frank were themselves the authors of the hue and cry about his being a Jew, and they did it for the sordid purpose of influencing financial supplies. Wealthy Israelites all over the land have been appealed to, and their race pride aroused, in order that the lawyers and the detectives might have the use of unlimited funds. The propaganda in favor of Frank has been even more expensive than that in favor of Morse.

jan_leo-frank

The rich Jews of Athens, Atlanta, Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, &c., have furnished the sinews of war. I dare say the campaign has not cost less than half-a-million dollars. The lawyers have probably been paid at least $100,000. The Burns Detective Agency has no doubt fingered $100,000. The publicity bills in the daily papers must be enormous.

Under the law of Georgia, no man can be convicted on the evidence of an accomplice. The testimony in the case, apart from that of the accomplice, must be of such a character as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, save that of the defendant’s guilt.

Has any civilized State a milder code than that? Could any sane person ask that the law of Georgia should be more favorable to the accused?

The newspapers which sold themselves to the Burns propaganda, have said, and repeated, that Leo Frank was convicted on the evidence of a low-down, drunken negro.

It is not true. Under the law of Georgia, that cannot be done. And in the Frank case, it was not done.

Before going into the facts of this most horrible case, let us get our bearings by referring to other celebrated cases. Take, for instance, the case of Eugene Aram, which still possesses a melancholy interest, though the murderer paid his penalty 155 years ago. “The Dream of Eugene Aram” is one of Thomas Hood’s fine poems; and Bulwer made the story the basis of one of his best novels.

Eugene Aram, the learned, respected schoolmaster, was convicted upon the evidence of his accomplice. Apart from this, there was almost nothing against the accused. There was not even an identification of the skeleton of the deceased, which for thirteen years had been buried in a cave. For thirteen years the scholarly Aram had been leading a correct, quiet life, when he was arrested. His character, previous to the crime, was unblemished. Without the accomplice, there was no proof of the corpus delicti, nor of any motive; nor was there any corroboration that excluded the idea of defendant’s innocence.

But there was testimony to the effect that Aram was in company with Clark (the deceased) the last time Clark was seen in life; and Aram (like Frank) did not even try to tell what had become of the deceased.

This was the circumstance that weighed most against Aram—who confessed, after sentence of death!

One of the most celebrated of American cases was the murder of Dr. Parkman, of Boston, by Professor Webster, a man of great eminence and of spotless character, whose friends were numerous and of the highest standing. All New England was profoundly stirred when it was learned that Dr. Parkman had disappeared, and that he had last been seen entering the College where he went for the purpose of seeing Professor Webster on a matter of business.

In this case the controlling factor was, that Dr. Parkman had disappeared into the Professor’s rooms, and had never reappeared. What went with him? What became of him? Professor Webster could not answer.

When Rufus Choate, the greatest criminal lawyer in New England, was applied to by the friends of Professor Webster, he offered to take the case if they would consent for him to plead manslaughter. He meant to put the defense on the line, that the two men had had a quarrel in the laboratory; and that, in the heat of passion, the Professor had killed the Doctor. Webster’s friends declined this proposition, and Choate refused the case.

Webster was convicted, and confessed, after sentence of death!

In the case of Henry Clay Beattie, the testimony was about on a par, in character and convincing power, with that against Frank; yet, Beattie continued to lustily cry out, “I am innocent! They are about to commit judicial murder,” and there were numbers of our most intelligent people who believed what he said.

He, also, confessed after he lost hope of reprieve.

The standard books on evidence teach young lawyers that one of the most striking phases of human nature is, the inclination to believe.

Trained lawyers, entrusted with the lives of the Beatties, the Patricks, the Beckers, the Woodfolks, and the Franks, realize the value of the constant repetition, “I am innocent. I didn’t do it! They are about to commit judicial murder!”

Realizing it, they make use of it. Sometimes, they overdo it!

In the Tom Woodfolk case, a splendid gentleman and first-class lawyer, John Rutherford, actually worked himself to death, for a guilty monster who, among his victims, killed a pretty little girl.

In the Flanigan case, the best criminal lawyer in North Georgia, Hon. Bill Glenn, made himself a nervous wreck, toiling to save a wretched miscreant who was as guilty as hell, and who didn’t deserve a day out of the Book of Life of any respectable lawyer.

And I venture to predict that when Frank’s attorneys get through with their labors for this detestable Sodomite, they will never again be what they were—in health, standing, or practice.

jan_mary-phagan

Leo Frank came down from New York, to take charge of a factory where young Gentile girls worked for Hebrews, at a wage-scale of five or six dollars a week.

Leo Frank was a typical young Jewish man of business who loves pleasure, and runs after Gentile girls. Every student of Sociology knows that the black man’s lust after the white woman, is not much fiercer than the lust of the licentious Jew for the Gentile.

Leo Frank was reared in the environment of “the gentleman friend,” whose financial aid is necessary to the $5-a-week girl. He lived many years in that atmosphere. He came in contact with the young women who are paid the $5-a-week, and who are expected to clothe themselves, find decent lodgings, and pay doctor’s bills out of the regular wage of five dollars a week.

Leo Frank knew what this system meant to the girls. In fact, we all know what it means, but we don’t like to say so. We prefer not to interrupt our bounties to Chinese charities, or check our provisioning of Belgian derelicts.

How gay a life Leo Frank led among the wage-slaves of the North, we do not know; but when he arrived in Atlanta, he seems to have kept the pace, from the very beginning.

To his Rabbi, he was a model young man; to the girls in the factory, he was a cynical libertine. The type is familiar.

If the seducer wore a badge, as the policeman does, he would never seize his prey. If all the immoral men were to appear so, when they go to church, the hopeless minority of the virtuous might have to limit their devotional exercises to family prayer.

With prurient curiosity, Frank used to hover about the private room, where the girls changed their dresses, &c.

A girl from the fourth floor, spent some time, frequently, in this private room, in company with Frank, and they were alone. Neither Frank nor the woman from the 4th floor had any legitimate business alone in the private room of the girls. One of Frank’s own witnesses, a white girl, testified to these facts.

Such things cannot be done in a factory, without being known to somebody; and that somebody is sure to tell the others.

That is why Mary Phagan detested him and repulsed him. She was a good girl; and, while her poverty forced her to work under Frank, she was determined not to yield to him any dishonorable way. Her resistance had the natural result of whetting his depraved appetite.

The lawyers of the defense put Frank’s character in evidence, proving by certain witnesses that it was good. The prosecution had no right to question these witnesses as to details.

Then, the State put up witnesses who swore that Frank’s character, as to lasciviousness, was bad. Again, the State could not go into details. But the defense could have done so. The law allows a defendant, thus attacked, to cross-examine the witnesses, as to the particular facts and circumstances which cause them to swear that the defendant is a man of bad character. In other words, the law of Georgia authorizes Leo Frank to have inquired of each one of these witnesses, —

“What moves you to testify that I am lascivious? What is it that you know against me? What are the facts upon which you base your opinion? Tell me what you saw me do! Tell me what’s in your mind, and perhaps I can explain, rebut, and remove the evil effect of your testimony.”

That’s the position in which our law places a defendant. It gives him the privilege of sifting the witness, and of drawing from him the particular incidents, or circumstances, which have caused him to believe that the defendant is bad.

It often happens that, when the defendant cross-examines these witnesses against his character, they give flimsy and absurd reasons, thus bringing ridicule upon themselves, and vindication to the accused!

All lawyers know this; and all lawyers, who feel sure of their client, never fail to put these character-witnesses through a course of sprouts.

Confident of the integrity of their client, they know that a cross-examination of the character-witnesses will develop the fact, that they have been jaundiced by personal ill-will, and have made mountains out of mole-hills.

But Leo Frank’s lawyers did not dare to ask any character-witness why she swore that Frank was a man of lascivious character!

Messrs. Rosser and Arnold knew their client, Leo Frank; they did not dare to ask a single witness the simple question, “Why do you swear that Frank’s character is bad?”

They did not dare to ask, “What is it that you know on him?

They KNEW that the answers would ruin whatever chance Frank had; and that it would be suicidal to ask those white girls to go into the details of Frank’s hideous private life.

In this connection, there is another ominously significant fact that should be weighed: Frank and his lawyers did not offer to allow him to be cross-examined. Under our law, it is the right of the defendant to make his statement to the jury, and his attorneys may direct his attention to any fact which he omits. But the State cannot ask him a single question, unless he voluntarily makes that proposition.

In this case, where the defendant claimed that the only material evidence against him was that of “a drunken negro,” an innocent man would have joyfully embraced the opportunity to save his life, and clear his name.

Isn’t it so? Can you imagine what objection you would have had to being questioned, had you been in Frank’s place? You are innocent; you could have accounted for yourself at the time Mary Phagan was being done to death; you would have gladly said, “Ask me any question you like. I have nothing to hide. I am not afraid of that negro. I know that I didn’t commit the crime. I know that I can tell you where I was, when Mary Phagan was killed.”

Did Frank do that?

No, indeed! He sat there and heard Jim Conley’s story. He sat there, and listened, hour after hour, as Luther Rosser, the giant of the Atlanta bar, cross questioned the negro, and vainly exhausted himself in herculean efforts to shatter the rock of Jim Conley’s simple and straightforward account of the crime.

He sat there as Jim Conley fitted the damning facts on him, Frank, and he did not dare to do what the negro had done. He did not dare to allow the Solicitor-General to cross-question him, as Rosser had cross-questioned Jim.

Innocent? Was that the courage of conscious innocence?

No. Frank prepared a careful statement, and recited it to the jury, and did not offer to answer any question. He knew that he could not afford it.

Helen Ferguson had often gotten Mary Phagan’s pay-envelope; and had Frank allowed Helen to do this, one more time, he would not now be where he is—and poor Mary Phagan would not be a memory of horror to him, and to us.

Why wouldn’t he let Helen Ferguson draw the pay-envelope that time? Ah, he wanted Mary to come back.

The next day was the Memorial Day; the next day is the Jewish Sabbath; the next day, in the morning, Mary Phagan is one of the sweetest flowers of the Sunny South; the next day, in the morning, she is seen of all men, rosy, joyous, pure and full of life and hope; the next day, in the morning, she goes to Frank for the withheld pay-envelope, with its poor one dollar and twenty cents; and when she is lost to sight, on her way to the den where Frank is waiting for her, SHE IS LOST FOREVER.

No man or woman ever sees her more, until the lifeless body is found in the basement.

There were scratch-pad notes lying beside her; and Frank says that the “drunken Jim Conley,” not only raped and killed the girl while he, Frank, was unconsciously at his usual work in his office, but that Conley alone got the body down to the basement, and then secured the scratch-pad, and composed those four notes.

In those notes, the negro is not only made to say that a negro “did it, by his self,” but the negro is described so particularly, that he can be advertised for; and no attempt is made to lay it on the white man who is the only other man in the building!

Marvelous negro, Jim.

Mary Phagan was barely fifteen years old [Actually, she was not quite fourteen. — Ed.], and the evidence is all one way, as to what kind of girl she had been. As far back as the early days of March, 1913, Leo Frank had begun to ogle her, hang about her, and try to lead her in conversation. The little white boy, Willie Turner, swore to it, and no attempt was made to impeach him. He saw Frank endeavor to force his attentions on Mary, in the metal room; and he saw the girl back off, and say to Frank that she must go to her work. He heard Frank when he made the effort to use the job-lash on Mary, saying to her significantly, “I am the Superintendent of this factory.

What did that mean? He had not spoken to her about her work, or about the factory affairs. He was trying to get up a personal “chat,” as he had a habit of doing with other women of the place; and when she excused herself and was backing away from the man whom she instinctively dreaded, he used that species of employer’s intimidation, “I am the Superintendent of this factory.” Meaning what?

Meaning, “It lies in my power to fire you, if you displease me.”

Dewey Hewell, a white girl who had worked in the factory under Frank—and who knew him only too well—testified that she had heard Frank talking to Mary frequently, and had seen him place his hands on her shoulders, and call her by her given name.

Gantt testified that Frank noticed that he, Gantt, knew Mary Phagan, and remarked to him, Gantt, “I see that you know Mary, pretty well.”

Yet, Frank afterwards said that he did not know Mary Phagan!

Frank had been monkeying with girls who depended on him for work. Lascivious in character, according to twenty white girl witnesses, whom Rosser and Arnold dared not cross-examine. Leo Frank’s lewdness drove him toward Mary Phagan, as two white witnesses declared. She repulsed him, as the evidence of white witnesses showed.

Her work-mate applied for the pay-envelope on Friday, April 25th. Frank refused it, and Mary went for it on the morning of the 26th. She is seen to go up in the elevator towards Frank’s office on the second floor.

He says that she came to him in his office, and got her pay!

No mortal eye ever saw that girl again, until her bruised and ravished body—with the poor under garments all dabbled in her virginal blood—was found in the basement.

Where was Leo Frank?

It was proved by Albert McKnight that Frank went to his home, sometime near 2 o’clock that day [1:30 — Ed.], (his folks were absent) stood at the side-board in the dining room, for five or ten minutes, did not eat a morsel, and went out again, toward the city.

A determined effort was made to break down this evidence, but it failed.

On that same day, Frank wrote to his Brooklyn people, that nothing “startling” had happened in the factory, since his rich uncle had left. He stated that the time had been too short for anything startling to have happened. The tragedy had already occurred.

That night he did something which he had never done before: he called up the night-watchman, Newt Lee, and asked him over the telephone if anything had happened at the factory.

Mary Phagan’s body was lying in the basement; and in his agony of suspense and nervousness, Frank was trying to learn whether the corpse had been found!

At three o’clock that same night, Newt Lee found the body, and gave the alarm. Detective Sharpe called Frank over the telephone, asking that he come to the factory at once. Two men were sent for him, and he was found nervously twitching at his collar, and his questions were, “What’s the trouble? Has the night watchman reported anything? Has there been a tragedy?”

Why did he think there had been a tragedy at the factory?

If he had paid off Mary Phagan as he says, and she had gone her way out of the building and into the city—to see the Confederate Vets parade, or for something else—why was he calling up Newt Lee, Saturday night, asking if anything had happened at the factory?

NOBODY THEN KNEW THAT ANYTHING TRAGIC HAD HAPPENED TO MARY, ANYWHERE!

He was haunted by the dead girl who lay in the basement. To save his soul, he could not get her off his mind. The gruesome thing possessed him, held him, tortured him. Thundering in his brain, all the time, were the terrific words, “Be sure your sin will find you out!

During the dreadful hours that followed Frank’s return to the factory, his agitated mind cast about for a theory, a scape-goat, that would keep the bloodhounds off his own trail. He insinuatingly directed suspicion toward Newt Lee, the negro who was never there at all during the middle of the days. He not only hinted at Lee, and suggested Lee, but after somebody had planted a bloody shirt on Lee’s premises, Frank asked that a search be made at Lee’s house. The bloody shirt was found, bloody on both sides. Unless the carrier of the dead body shifted it from one side to the other, there was no way to account for blood on both sides of any shirt. But, worst of all! whoever planted the dirty old shirt, and smeared the blood on it, forgot to saturate it with the sweat of a negro! There was none of the inevitable, and unmistakable African scent on that soiled garment—and yet the armpits of a laboring negro ooze lots of African scent.

Not only did Frank try to fix guilt on Lee, but he hinted suspicion of Gantt, the man who went to the factory on the fatal Saturday, after Mary had been killed, to get two pairs of old shoes which he had left on one of the upper floors.

Frank demurred at Gantt’s going in, and made up a tale about the sweeping out of a pair of old shoes along with the litter and trash. But Gantt caught Frank in the falsehood, by asking him to describe the shoes that had been swept out. Frank “fell to it,” and described one pair. “But I left two pairs!” exclaimed Gantt, and Frank was silenced. Gantt went up, got the shoes, and left. Yet Frank tried to fasten suspicion on him.

Now, use your mother wit:

Why did Frank never cast a suspicious eye, or a suspicious word, TOWARD JIM CONLEY?

He was ready to put the dogs on the tracks of Newt Lee, the negro who worked there at night. He was ready to lead the pack in the direction of Gantt, the white man who came on Saturday to get his old shoes.

But he was not ready to breathe the slightest hint toward Jim Conley, whom all the witnesses placed in the factory, WITH FRANK, during the very time that Mary Phagan must have been ravished.

Why did he keep the hounds off the trail of Jim Conley? Why did he point the finger of suspicion toward Gantt and toward Lee, and never toward Conley?

There is but one answer—and you know what that is. Frank could not put the dogs after Conley, WITHOUT BEING RUN DOWN, HIMSELF!

In vain did the detectives endeavor to trace evidence against Lee, and against Gantt. In vain, did they labor to get the trail away from that factory. It was right there, and no earthly ingenuity could move it.

On Monday, Frank telegraphed to Adolf Montag, who was in New York, that the factory had the case well in hand and that the mystery would be solved. He had employed a Pinkerton detective, and this detective, fortunately, pinned Frank down as to where he was, at the crucial hour, that Saturday.

Scott asked Frank—“Were you in your office, from twelve o’clock until Mary Phagan entered your office, and thereafter until ten minutes before one o’clock, when you went to get Mrs. White out of the building?”

And Frank, answering his own detective, said that he was. Thus, his own admission, before his arrest, placed him near the scene of the crime, AT THE TIME IT WAS COMMITTED. [Ten to fifteen before one. — Ed.]

Scott again asked—“Then, from 12 o’clock to 12:30, every minute of that half hour, you were at your office?”

Frank answered, “Yes.”

But he lied. The unimpeachable white girl, Monteen Stover, testified that she went to Frank’s office, during that half hour, AND NOBODY WAS THERE!

No wonder the infamous William J. Burns did his utmost, afterwards, to frighten this young woman and to force her to take back what she had sworn. No wonder he sent the Rabbi after her. He himself threatened her, and then entrapped her in the law office of Samuel Boorstein, and tried to hold her there against her will!

The brassy, shallow, pretentious scoundrel! He richly deserves to be in the penitentiary himself!

Mind you! When Frank told his detective, Scott, that he was in his office during the half-hour between 12 o’clock and half-past twelve, he did not know that Monteen Stover had been there. He had not seen her; he had not heard her. He was employed at something else, somewhere else. At what? And where?

In his statement, which he had had months to prepare, he said that he might have gone to the water closet.

In the note that lay beside Mary Phagan’s body, she is made to say that she was going to the water closet, when the tall negro, all by “his self,” assaulted her.

And it was on the passage to THIS toilet, (adjoining Frank’s own toilet,) that the crime was committed.

The water-closet idea is in those telltale notes—and where else? In Leo Frank’s final statement to the jury!

Would “a drunken brute of a negro,” after raping and killing a white woman within a few steps of a white man’s private office, with the white man inside of it, linger at the scene of his awful crime to compose four notes? Would he need any theory about the water closet?

Would he have been in an agony of labor to account for the presence of his victim, at that place? Not at all.

He would have left that point to take care of itself, and he would have struck a bee line for the distant horizon. Negroes committing rapes on white women, do not tarry. Never! NEVER!!

They go, and they keep going, as though all the devils of hell were after them; for they know what will happen to them, if the white men get hold of them.

Jim Conley—where was he, at the time when Frank was not in his office?

Mrs. Arthur White swore that Jim Conley, or a negro man that looked like him, was at his place of duty, downstairs. He was sitting down, and there was nothing whatever to attract any especial attention to him. This was at thirty-five minutes after twelve-and Mary Phagan had already been to Frank’s office, by his own statement, and had got her pay envelope, and gone away. Gone where?

Toward the toilet?

If so, Frank knew it, and Conley didn’t, for Conley was below, on another floor. Mrs. White puts him there.

Who, then, wrote the note about the water closet, and made Mary say she went to it “to make water?”

Where was Mary, when Monteen Stover looked into Frank’s vacant office? Where was Frank, THEN? The note said Mary went toward the toilet “to make water.” Frank’s statement was that he must have been at the toilet, when Monteen looked into his office. Great God! Then, Frank puts himself at the very place where the note puts Mary Phagan!

Did you ever know the circumstances to close in on a man, as these do on Frank?

Out of his own mouth, this lascivious criminal is convicted.

The men’s toilet used by Frank, and to which he said he may have unconsciously gone, was only divided by a partition from the ladies’ room to which the note said Mary had gone.

THEREFORE, FRANK PLACES HIMSELF WITH MARY, AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME!

Why did he pretend that he did not know Mary by sight? Why did he go to the Morgue twice, and shrink away without looking at her; and then afterwards, in his statement, describe her appearance on the cooling table, as fairly and as circumstantially, as though he had been a physician, making an expert examination?

Why was he so completely knocked up by suspense and anxiety, that he “trembled and shook like an aspen,” on his way to the police station?

And why, why did this white man never flare up with blazing wrath against the negro who accused him of the awful crime, and gladly embrace the opportunity to face the negro and put him to shame?

Where is the innocent white man who is afraid to face a guilty negro?

Where is the white man who would have tamely taken that negro’s fearful accusation, as Frank took it? Would you have failed to face Conley?

Apart from every word that Jim Conley uttered, we have the following facts.

Frank’s bad character for lasciviousness; his pursuit of Mary Phagan, and her avoidance of him; his withholding her pay-envelope Friday afternoon and thus making it necessary for her to return to his office on Saturday; his presence in his office in the forenoon, and her coming into it at noon, to get the pay-envelope; her failure to reappear down-stairs, or up-stairs, and the absence of both Frank and Mary, from his office, during the half hour that followed Mary’s arrival in the office; the presence of Conley on the lower floor, at the necessary time of the crime; the inability of Frank to account for himself, at the necessary time of the crime; the utter failure of Frank to explain what became of Mary; his desperate attempt to place himself in his office at the time of the crime, and the unexpected presence of Monteen Stover there, and her evidence that he was out; his incriminating lie on that point, and his nervous hurry to get Mrs. White out of the building; his strange reluctance to allow Gantt to go in for his old shoes, and his falsehood on that subject; his refusal to allow Newt Lee to enter the building at 4 o’clock, P.M., although the night-watchman came at that hour, and begged to be allowed to go in and sleep; his conduct that night, calling up Lee, and asking the officers about the “tragedy,” when no tragedy had been brought home to him by any knowledge save his own; his efforts to throw the officers off the scent; his amazing failure to hint a suspicion of Jim Conley; his equally guilty fear of calling Daisy Hopkins to the stand—Daisy, the woman who was shown conclusively to have visited Frank at the factory, and who had no business there except in her peculiarly shameful line of business. It was this woman that Conley said he had watched through the keyhole, when Frank was sodomizing with her, and Frank’s lawyers dared not put her up, as a witness.

The blood marks are found, in the direction of the men’s toilet and the metal room; and Mary’s bloody drawers and bloody garter-straps show that she bled from her virginal womb, before she died. Around her neck was the cord that choked her to death. On her head was the evidence of a blow.

Frank could not have been off that floor. He could not have been far away. He had been in his office, with Mary, just a few minutes before. He was back in his office, at 12:35, seen by Mrs. White, and jumping nervously as she saw him. He stated that his temporary absence from his office may have been caused by a call of nature. Such a call would have carried him directly toward the place where the note said Mary went, for the same purpose!

Had you been on the jury, with all these links of circumstances fastening themselves together in one great iron chain of conviction, what would you have believed, as to Frank’s guilt?

Now consider Conley:

He was Frank’s employee, and to some extent his trusty. Frank didn’t mind Conley’s knowing about Daisy Hopkins, and other things of the same kind. Frank did not want Rabbi Marx to know anything of his secret sins, but he did not care if Conley knew. Therefore, Conley was the person to whom he would naturally turn when the Mary Phagan adventure went wrong. Frank needed help to dispose of the body, for Frank had a vast deal at stake. His social position, his business connections, his fellowship in the B’nai B’rith, his standing in the synagogue, his wife and mother and father and uncle—all these imperatively demanded that Frank dispose of that terrible dead girl!

Would Conley have cared what became of her body?

Do negroes who violate white women stay to dispose of the bodies? Never in the world. Their first thought is to get away themselves, and they do it, whenever they can.

What hindered Jim Conley, if he was the rapist, from being in the woods, sixty miles away, by the time Mary’s body was found Sunday morning? Nothing!

If he had raped and killed the girl, he could securely have gone out of the building, out of the city, and out of the State, before anybody knew what had become of Mary Phagan.

Frank couldn’t afford to run!

He had to stay.

Ask yourself this question:

Was it more natural for a negro to rape a white girl, and stay where he was, in the belief that he could lay the crime on a white man; or was it more natural for a white man to do it, remain where he was, and hope to fix it on a negro?

It is unnecessary to relate Jim Conley’s evidence in detail. He made out a complete case against Frank, and he was corroborated by white witnesses at every point where any of the facts came within the knowledge of others. Of course, there could be no witnesses to what he and Frank did with Mary’s corpse, but so far as the physical indications of the crime existed, they contradicted Frank, and corroborated Conley.

According to the allegations made by Conley’s lawyer, William M. Smith, the friends of Leo Frank made strenuous efforts to corrupt Conley, then scare him, and perhaps poison him, before the trial came on.

William J. Burns afterwards made a fool of Smith; but Smith did not attempt to escape from the allegations which he had formally, in a legal paper, made against the friends of Frank. According to Smith, Conley’s life was in danger, and measures were taken to protect it.

This is the Smith that the New York Times, World, &c., made such a loud noise over, when he went into a deal with Burns, to play the Nelms case against the case of Frank.

The indictment against Frank was found by the grand jury, on May 24th, 1913. He had been in jail since the Coroner’s jury had committed him May 8th.

His trial commenced on the 28th of July, and more than 200 witnesses were examined.

On the 25th of August the Judge, L.S. [Leonard Strickland] Roan, charged the jury, and they went to their room for deliberation. In a comparatively short time, they returned, saying they had made a verdict, and defendant’s attorneys, waiving his personal attendance, polled the jury. That is, each juror was asked if the verdict of guilty was his verdict.

This perfunctory right is the only one that the law allows a defendant at that stage of the trial.

Frank was asked on August 26th what he had to say, as to why the sentence should not be pronounced on him. He had nothing of consequence to say, and he was sentenced to be hanged on October 10th, 1913.

On October 31, Judge Roan denied a motion for new trial, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the evidence and sustained Judge Roan, Feb. 17, 1914.

An extraordinary motion for new trial was made and overruled in April, 1914.

Then, the lawyers of Frank raised the point, that he had not been personally present when the jury rendered their verdict. This was treated as trifling with the law and with the court.

It never was a right, under English and American law, for a defendant to be personally present all the time; and it is the law that whatever he can waive, during his trial, his attorneys can waive.

Had Frank been personally present, he could not have done anything more than his lawyers did; to-wit, poll the jury. That is a formal, valueless right which is almost never exercised, and which never has panned out results in Georgia.

Jurors do not bring in a verdict until they are agreed: the verdict is each juror’s verdict. Otherwise, there is a dead-lock and a mistrial.

After the best criminal lawyers of the Atlanta bar had exhausted themselves in behalf of Leo Frank, the case was given to that calliope detective, William J. Burns—the fussy charlatan who hunts for evidence with a brass band, and a searchlight.

With an uproarious noise, he invaded Georgia, and breezily assumed that the Frank case had just begun. He began it all over again. He went to the factory to look over the physical indications, just as though the crime had not been committed a year before Burns got to Atlanta.

He raised his voice, in a boastful roar, and invited mankind to watch him, “the Great Detective,” as he went sleuthing over the premises of that factory. The way the man talked was something phenomenal, prodigious, cyclonic, cataclysmic. Every morning the papers were full of Burns, the Great Detective. Every day we had to eat, drink and digest Burns. Every night we had to think, talk and dream about Burns. The whole State, and all the papers, got to looking toward Atlanta, as a Mussulman does toward Mecca, for Burns was there.

With inconceivable rapidity, Burns made up his mind, and announced his decision. Nay, he roared it from the castellated battlements, so that the whole human race could hear.

He had discovered that the crime on Mary Phagan had been committed by a moral pervert of the worst type. He had discovered that no one who had been suspected and arrested, was guilty. The miscreant who did the deed was “at large,” and Burns knew where to get him when he wanted him.

Then Burns shot out of Georgia, and went North—presumably to put his hands on that miscreant who had never been suspected, and who in Burns’ own words, “is at large.”

Everywhere that Burns went, the noise was sure to go.

The papers resounded with Burns. The Baltimore Sun, (Abell) the New York Times, (Ochs) the New York World, (Pulitzer) and other Hebrewish organs proclaimed the joyful news, “Burns clears Frank!”

It was airily assumed that Burns was the coroner’s jury, the grand jury, the petit jury, the judge, the witnesses, and the lawyers.

What did it matter to this asinine mountebank that Frank’s case had been given, to the fullest measure, the liberal metes of our statutory law?

Is every man to have two trials, because he wants them? Is any man entitled to exceptional rules, usages and privileges?

Did the gunmen who shot Rosenthal get two trials?

They also were Jews, and they also were vehemently “innocent.” Yet they confessed before execution.

Is the richly connected Jew, Frank, entitled to better treatment in Georgia, than those indigent Jews got, in New York?

The Abells, and the Ochses, and the Pulitzers, did not raise much fuss for the Hebrew gunmen.

If Mary Phagan had been a Jewess, and Frank a Gentile, would all this scurrilous crusade against Georgia have been waged in the Jewish papers?

If Frank had killed a Jew, as the New York gunmen did, would these Jewish millionaires be so lavish with their money and their abuse?

Do they imagine that we care nothing for the Mary Phagans that are left alive?

Is no check ever to be put upon the employers of girls, who insolently take it for granted that the girls can be used for lascivious purposes?

Shall the Law trace no deadline around the children of the poor, and say to arrogant wealth, “Touch them, at your peril?

Upon what monstrous theory of shoddy aristocracy, and commercial snobbery, is based on the idea that, in pursuing Mary Phagan, entrapping her, ravishing her, and choking her to death, this lascivious pervert did not foully outrage every decent white man who has a pure daughter, granddaughter, sister or sweet-heart?

Burns rooted around in several Northern cities, endeavoring to discover the criminal who “is at large.” Burns failed to find this criminal. Then he returned to Atlanta, and began his virtuous efforts to suppress, and to invent evidence.

For his dastardly campaign against Monteen Stover, he richly deserves to be tarred and feathered in every State where he shows his brassy face.

For his abortive purchase of the affidavits of Rev. Ragsdale and the deacon, Barber, he richly deserves a penal term.

In May 1912, President Taft, upon the recommendation of Attorney-General Wickersham, set aside some verdicts in some Oregon cases, in the U.S. Courts, upon the express grounds that WILLIAM J. BURNS AND HIS AGENTS HAD PACKED THE JURY-BOXES!

No wonder Burns skipped out—the braggart, the faker, the crook, the coward!

His right hand man, Dan Lehon, was expelled from the Chicago police force for being a detected crook; and Lehon is a better man, and a braver man, than the contemptible Burns.

It was on this bought and perjured evidence that Frank endeavored to secure a new trial, by the extraordinary motion.

An effort to suppress evidence is indicative of guilt: Frank did that.

An effort to fabricate testimony is indicative of guilt: Frank did that.

An effort to seduce the attorney of an accessory, and to have that attorney betray his client, is indicative of guilt, especially when the attorney in question is willing, but not able, to shift suspicion to his own client.

Encircling Frank, and nobody else, are these convicting circumstances:

Motive; opportunity; unexplainable movements, sayings and conduct; contradictory statements; presence at the time and place of the crime; attempts to inculpate innocent persons; efforts to intimidate witnesses, suppress evidence, and use perjured affidavits; and lascivious character in dealings with the girls in that factory.

Frank wanted Mary Phagan, not to kill her, but to enjoy her. His murder of the girl was incidental.

He did not resolve to choke her to death, until after he realized that if she left there alive, she would raise the town, and he would be lynched by the infuriated people.

Then he called for Conley’s help, and his plan was, to make away with the corpse.

And because he had used Conley, and was therefore afraid of what he might say, Frank never once suggested to the policemen, or the detectives, to question Conley. Question Newt Lee, BUT DON’T QUESTION CONLEY, THE DAY MAN, WHO WAS THERE WHEN MARY WAS!

Why did Frank ignore THIS negro, at that time, and try to fasten the guilt on the other negro, Newt Lee?

Newt could not implicate Frank; Jim Conley could.

There you are; and all the lawyer-sophistry in Christendom cannot get away from it.

 

“A drunken negro!” That shibboleth, of late adoption, is now the burden of Frank’s statements. In his many newspaper articles, in the editorials which the Jewish papers publish, in Burns’ various proclamations and war whoops, in the pleas of the lawyers, it all simmers down to Jim Conley, “a drunken brute of a negro.”

When did Conley become the black beast of the case?

Burns himself did not make him the scape-goat when he uproariously bore down upon Atlanta, and lifted the floodgates of his jackass talk. At that time, the guilty man “is a pervert of the lowest type; he has never been arrested; he is at large.” Burns was going to spring a sensation by pouncing upon somebody that had never even been suspected. He was going to show the Atlanta police and the Pinkerton Detective Agency that they ought all to have gone to school to William J. Burns, The Great Detective. Conley was not at large; Conley had been arrested, investigated, and relegated to his proper position as accessory.

Therefore, Conley was not the imaginary man that Burns THEN had, in his omniscient optics.

Not until all his turbulent efforts to find a straw man had failed, did he and Lehon bribe the poor old preacher, Ragsdale, and his poorer deacon, Barber, to swear that they had heard Conley tell another negro that he had killed a white woman at the pencil factory. It was the clumsiest, Burnsiest piece of frame-up that I had ever read; and I immediately picked it to pieces, in the weekly Jeffersonian.

The papers had barely reached Atlanta for sale on the streets, before Ragsdale broke them down and confessed—and now Burns is afraid to put himself within the jurisdiction of the Georgia courts.

When did Frank discover that Jim Conley was a drunken brute of a negro? Not while employing him, for two years! Not while allowing him to remain inside the factory, that Saturday afternoon, when Newt Lee was not permitted to come in and go to sleep. Not while Frank’s own detective was probing, here and there, this one and that one, in the effort to find a lead. Not while the Coroner had the case in charge. Not once did Frank aid the police, the Pinkerton Detective, or the City detectives, by so much as a suspicious look toward the drunken brute of a negro.

Why not?

This young, lascivious Jew is a Cornell graduate, is as bright as a new pin, and keen as a needle; but in the tremendous crisis in which he found himself, that Saturday afternoon, his brain was in a turmoil, “a whirling gulf of phantasy and flame.” Hence, having made a terribly criminal mistake, he followed it up, as most criminals do, by making minor mistakes.

It was a mistake to move that bleeding body. It was a mistake to lie to Gantt about those old shoes. It was a mistake to refuse to let Newt Lee enter. It was a mistake to show so much anxiety to get rid of Mrs. White. It was a mistake to call up Newt Lee and inquire whether anything had happened at the factory. It was a mistake to ask the men, Rogers and Black, whether a tragedy had taken place at the factory. But of course, the crowning mistake was, to take Jim Conley into his confidence, in the mistaken effort to dispose of the corpse.

The one mistake in calculation led to the other, and these two led to the third; to-wit, the writing of those four notes, in which he made the dead girl say she had gone to the toilet “to make water.”

Are you to be told that a drunken brute of a negro would seize a white girl, inside a house, on a quiet legal holiday, violate her person, choke her to death with a cord, and then sit down to write four notes about it? Are you to be told that a drunken brute of a negro would attempt such a crime, within a few steps of the white man’s office; and would leave the stunned, unconscious victim on the floor while he searched around to find a cord with which to choke her to death? The hands of the drunken brute of a negro would have been as much cord as he wanted.

When you put Jim Conley in the place of the murderer of Mary Phagan, you cannot budge an inch. Nothing going before the crime, points at him. Nothing that is shown to have happened at the time and place of the crime, points to him. Nothing that occurred afterwards, points to him. Against Conley, the only testimony is that of Leo Frank!

Had the State endeavored to convict Conley, it would have been met at the very threshold by the law which mercifully says the accomplice cannot convict the accomplice.

Frank’s evidence against Conley stands alone! It has no corroboration whatsoever. And he is actuated by the irresistible motive to save his own neck.

Therefore, the case against Conley, is Frank, and nothing more.

When you put the negro in the place of the rapist and murderer, you confront the following difficulties:

Frank’s first intention to shield Conley from suspicion.

Frank’s attempts to cast suspicion on Lee and Gantt.

Frank’s fixed idea that a tragedy had happened in his place of business.

Frank’s haunting the Morgue, yet shrinking from the sight of Mary Phagan’s accusing face.

Frank’s refusal to face Conley, and to have a talk with him in the presence of witnesses.

Frank’s absence from his office, at the time of the crime, and his false statement that he was in the office, at that very time.

Frank’s efforts to “approach” Conley, intimidate him, or come to terms with him, as William M. Smith sets out in his statement to the court; and Frank’s attempts to make Monteen Stover perjure herself.

Frank’s bribery of Ragsdale, and the deal that was made with William M. Smith, by which he was to help slip the noose over the head of his own client, “the drunken brute of a negro.”

Was there ever a fouler attempt than that?

Was there ever a completer failure?

You cannot imagine that the intellectual Frank has not kept in the closest communication with his lawyers, his detectives, and his friends, in these almost superhuman efforts to save his guilty life.

It is not Jim Conley that has struggled to pull himself out of the meshes. It is not Jim Conley that endeavored to corrupt Frank’s witnesses, and seduce Frank’s lawyers. It was not Jim Conley that went out to hire a preacher and a deacon to swear away the life of Leo Frank!

It was not Jim Conley who attempted to use the purchased affidavits, to mislead the Court, befuddle the public, and escape Justice.

It was Frank, whose conduct before the crime points in the direction of guilt. It was Frank who could not be seen, heard, or accounted for at the time of the crime. It was Frank whose actions were suspicious after the crime. It was Frank whose conduct, since the trial, has been that of a desperate criminal, frantically and blunderingly endeavoring to escape the toils.

None of this will fit Jim Conley, or anybody else. It fits Frank! It cannot be made to fit anybody but Frank.

Then who is guilty?

Either the white man, or the negro, or both, ravished and killed that little girl.

The bloodmarks say she was killed on Frank’s floor, not far from his private office—AND NEAR HIS TOILET, WHERE HE SAYS HE MAY HAVE GONE—not on Conley’s floor, where Mrs. White saw the negro, at that time.

The note says she was killed on Frank’s floor, on her way to the toilet, where she had gone “to make water,” therefore, next to Frank’s toilet—not on Conley’s floor at all.

Did Conley leave the lower floor, come up to Frank’s floor, and do the deed? Why, Conley could not have known that Mary was not in Frank’s office, for that was where he had seen her go.

Conley did not know where Mary was at that time. Leo Frank was the only human being that knew where Mary was, at that identical moment!

He himself says that she had been in his office and had gone out; and he knew that she did not take the elevator up or down, but went towards the metal room, to see whether the metal which she was to work with had come.

He followed her, overtook her, solicited her, put his hands on her—and she screamed! Then he struck her, knocking her down, fiendishly mistreated her, and then, horror-struck at the sight, and terrified by his consciousness of consequences, he went and got the cord which choked her life out.

Take Jim Conley’s story, and every proved incident dove-tails into it.

Take Frank’s story, and every proved fact collides with it.

Then who is guilty?

 

Ah, who knows a man so well as his wife does? This young married man, who had a young wife, must have been outraging every feminine instinct of her honest nature, for at first, she would not go about him.

In your bitter time of trouble if your own wife, near by, holds aloof, there is something hideously wrong with you!

“Last at the Cross, and first at the grave,” women are true!

It makes terribly against Leo Frank that his young wife held back! What pressure finally conquered her reluctance?

 

Poor little Mary Phagan! The chiefest of poets has sung of the proud Roman lady who would not survive her honor; but, in the hearts of right thinking men, Cornelia [actually Lucretia. — Ed.], ravished by a King’s son, is no better than this daughter of the good old State of Georgia, who lost her life in defense of her chastity.

While the City witnessed the parade of the time-battered remnants of the Confederate armies that had given so many precious lives in defense of those things that men hold dear, only the angels and the Great God witnessed the struggles of Mary Phagan for the priceless jewel that good women hold dear. And there must have been blinding tears of unutterable pity, as those celestial witnesses looked down upon that frightful deed. Among all the horrible crimes that make humanity pale and shudder, there has been no blacker crime than that.

Only “a factory girl!” That’s what the papers kept on saying.

Yes; she was only a factory girl; there was no glamour of wealth and fashion about her. She had no millionaire uncle; she had no Athens kinspeople ready to raise fifty thousand dollars for her; she had no mighty connections to wield influence, muzzle newspapers, employ detectives, and manufacture public sentiment.

Only a factory girl; therefore the Solicitor-General has had no outside help, has found his path of duty one of arduous toil, has fought his way at every step in the case against overwhelming odds, and he won simply and solely because he had the Law, and the Evidence on his side.

Honor to Hugh Dorsey!

Just as Whitman of New York bravely met the hell-dogs of organized crime, and lashed them into cowed defeat, Dorsey triumphed over Big lawyers, Big detectives, Big money, and Big newspapers in Georgia.

And because an enthusiastic people caught up this young hero in their arms, after he had fought the good fight and won it, we are accused of saturating the court-room with the spirit of mob violence!

It’s an outrageous libel, on the State of Georgia!

No man ever had a fairer trial than Leo Frank, and no man was ever more justly convicted.

Never before did any criminal who had exhausted in his own behalf, every known right, privilege and precedent of the law, resort to such a systematic and unprecedented crusade against civilized tribunals, orderly methods, and legally established results.

If Frank’s lawyers, detectives and newspapers are to have their way, then the Code, the Jury System—proud achievements of the most illustrious lawyers that ever lived—will have suffered a degradation not known since the packing of juries in the New Orleans cases, a decade ago, so infuriated the people, that they rose in their wrath and wreaked vengeance upon those Italian assassins.

During all the stormy times of the Pitt-Eldon regime in England, our jury system rode triumphantly through its waves. One intrepid lawyer, Thomas Erskine, was able to vindicate the noble truth, that the effort of our judicial system is, to get twelve honest men in the jury box.

So proud was Erskine of the fact that our system, had come out of the terrible ordeal untarnished and with added glory, he took for his motto, to be emblazoned on the panels of his carriage—

Trial by jury.”

That which the most consummate of English advocates gloried in, we are asked to be ashamed of; and we are asked to condemn the verdict of Frank’s jury, when Frank himself is utterly unable to show that the law did not give him the twelve honest men in the box.

What more could it have given? What more did it have to give?

Nobody compelled Frank to become a citizen of Georgia. He came of his own free will. Has he any more rights than a native?

If Frank had been living in London at the time he crushed the life out of that human flower, little Mary Phagan, he would have long since gone the swift road that Dr. Crippin travelled to his merited doom.

“Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” So reads the sternly just law of the great old indomitable, unconquerable race from which we take so much of our religion, our law, and our democracy.

Is Frank to be an exception to Mosaic law? Is alleged race-prejudice to save him from the just penalties of the Code?

God knows, my sympathy is profound for those who sin through sudden passion, who are drawn astray by some irresistible temptation, who are lured to vice and crime by intense love or burning hate. For the man who kills another openly and who says to Society—“Yes, I did it! I had a right to do it. Here I am, take me, and try me!”—for such a man I have the broadest charity.

But for the man who waylays the road, or who basely stands outside a dwelling at night and murders the inmate—I have no pity whatsoever.

So, in a case like Frank’s, where a married man, a college-bred man, a man of the most creditable connections, deliberately lives a double life, debases himself to unnatural and inordinate lusts, and sets himself to the foul purpose of entrapping the one pure girl who was trying to save herself to be some good man’s wife—I admit, I freely admit, that it is in me to be as stern as the Law of the Twelve Tables.

Somebody must resist the dissolvent power of Big Money and a muzzled press, or Society will fall to pieces.

In all the imperial limits of Atlanta, were there not enough purchasable women, or lewd girls, to sate the lusts of Frank? Why was he so hell-bent to take this one little girl?

With his command of money and of opportunity, was he not the man of many flocks and herds?

Let us turn to The Book, and read the old, old story, ringing yet with the righteous wrath of the Prophet, and moving men’s hearts yet with its infinite pathos:

 

“And the Lord sent Nathan unto David—–

and he came unto him and said unto him—–

There were two men in one city—–the one

rich—–and the other—–POOR—–The

rich man had EXCEEDING MANY flocks and

herds—–but the poor man had NOTHING

—–save one—–little—–ewe lamb—–

which he had nourished up—–and it grew up

together with him and with HIS CHILDREN—-

it did eat of HIS OWN meat—–and drink of

HIS OWN cup—–and lay in his BOSOM—–

and was unto him as a DAUGHTER.

 

“And there came a traveller unto the rich man

—–and he spared to take of his OWN flock

and his OWN herd—–to dress for the wayfaring

man that was come unto him—–but

took—–the POOR MAN’S LAMB and dressed

IT for the man that was come unto him.

 

“And David’s anger was GREATLY kindled

against the MAN—–and he said to Nathan-

‘AS THE LORD LIVETH—the man that hath

done THIS thing shall surely die—–and he

shall restore the lamb FOURFOLD—–because

he did this thing and because he had no pity’

—–And Nathan said to David—–“THOU

—–art the man!”

 

Not long ago, a rich Hebrew, most influentially connected, stole two million dollars from the working people of New York, many of whom were Jews.

Henry Siegel stole the money under the familiar disguise of a commercial failure. He was tried and convicted—and sentenced to pay a fine of one thousand dollars, and to serve nine months in prison.

Whereupon, the Pulitzer paper, The World, admits that there does seem to be in this country one law for the rich and another for the poor.

Now, in the State of Georgia, we are doing our level best to prove that the law treats all men alike, and the Pulitzer paper is doing its best to defeat our aim.

The New York World has taken sides with the negroes, against the white people of the South, on all occasions.

It claims that the negroes are as good as we, and that the negroes should enjoy social and political equality.

So extreme has been the Pulitzer paper on this line that it sharply reproved President Wilson in the matter of the William Monroe Trotter episode.

The New York World virtually says that the President deserved the insolence of the negro delegation, in that he had not interfered to prevent the heads of the Departments from requiring that the negroes use separate water closets, &c.

Yet in the Frank case, the great point emphasized by the World and the other Jewish papers is, that a witness against Frank was a negro!

It seems that negroes are good enough to fill our ballots, make our laws, hold office, sleep in our beds, eat at our tables, marry our daughters, and mongrelize the Anglo-Saxon race, but are not good enough to bear testimony against a rich Jew!

It is all wrong for us to disfranchise the negroes, all wrong for McAdoo, Burleson and Williams to require them to eat in separate restaurants, use separate wash-rooms, and go to separate toilets; all wrong for the President to allow any difference between whites and blacks, but no negro must be taken as a witness against a Jew who can command unlimited money.

That sort of logic is a fair sample of all the Leo Frank special pleading. None of it would be tolerated a minute, if there had not been such a systematic propaganda in favor of this worst of deliberate criminals.

From the very necessity of the case, we have to take the evidence of negroes in some cases—else Justice would be defeated.

Criminals do not summon the best men in the community to witness their crimes.

The murder in the brothel must of necessity be proved by bad women. No good woman is there to see it—nor any good man, either.

Time and again, in Georgia, as in all States, it has happened that the only witnesses to the crime were negroes, or bad white men. What is the law to do, in such cases?

Must it let murder go unpunished, for the lack of white men of the best character?

Every case must of necessity stand on its own merits, and be judged by its surroundings. A witness, otherwise objectionable, may become invincible by reason of the nature of his association with the criminal, and with the res gestae of the crime.

In his proclamations to the public, Leo Frank stresses the point that the reviewing court has never passed upon the question of his guilt, or innocence.

In other words, he asserts positively, in a carefully prepared written statement, that the Supreme Court of Georgia has never reviewed the evidence in the case.

What an arrant falsehood!

Every tyro in the legal profession knows better.

In a first motion for a new trial there are three grounds which are so invariably taken, that even the form-books lay them down, as stereotyped.

The defendant always alleges that the verdict was strongly and decidedly against the evidence, against the weight of the evidence, and without evidence to support it.

Therefore, the Supreme Court had to pass on the evidence. The Supreme Court did pass on the evidence. And the Court did say that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

There was no “mob” threatening the Supreme Court. There was no military display menacing the Supreme Court.

Those serene, experienced lawyers were not twelve terrified jurors, for whom Leo Frank is now so sorry.

On their oaths and their consciences, those superb lawyers, coolly deliberating in private and in the profoundest security, had to say whether the evidence set forth in the record was sufficient to warrant the verdict of those twelve jurors.

And those Justices, upon their oaths and their consciences, said the evidence was sufficient.

Yet Leo Frank has the brazen effrontery to argue that his case has never been tried, except by twelve men who were scared into a verdict by the Atlanta “mob.”

This attempt at misleading a sympathetic public is on a par with the efforts made to suppress testimony, to frighten those girl witnesses, and to buy up Ragsdale and his deacon.

It is on a par with that pulpit crusade they started in Atlanta. It is on a par with William J. Burns’ “utterly confident” explorations in Cincinnati and New York. It is on a par with Burns’ interviews with Conan Doyle, John Burroughs and whole lot of other people who have never seen the record in this case, nor been charged with the fearful responsibility of trying this man for his life.

The State of Georgia and its Judiciary, and the honest jurors who were sworn to try Frank, have been vilified, held up to scorn and made objects of derision and hatred, by irresponsible persons who know nothing of the evidence, except that Jim Conley is a negro.

The public has been gulled, again and again, by the noisy protestations of William J. Burns, and by the assurance that something wonderfully sensational would explode very soon.

But nothing ever comes of it. Every time there is a show down, it is the same old thing. The same old fatal pursuit of the girl by Frank; the same old undisputed and damnable fact of the little victim being lured back to his private office, to get the pitiful balance of her pitiful wage; the same old unexplained disappearance of the girl, and the same old utter inability of Frank to give an account of himself.

Let me quote one sentence from a masterful book which has recently been published, and which has been widely read. Its author is Edward A. Ross, Professor of Sociology in the University of Wisconsin; the name of the book is, “The Old World and the New.”

This expert in Sociology makes a study of Immigration, the changes brought about by it, the diseases, crimes and vices incident to this foreign flood, &c.

On page 150, he says—

“The fact that the pleasure-loving Jewish business men spare Jewesses, but PURSUE GENTILE GIRLS excites bitter comment.”

This bitter comment is made by the city authorities, who have had to deal with these pleasure-loving Jewish business men who spare the Jewish girls, and run down the Gentile girls!

If Professor Ross had had the Frank case in his mind, he could not have hit it harder.

Here we have the pleasure-loving Jewish business man.

Here we have the Gentile girl.

Here we have the typical young libertine Jew who is dreaded and detested by the city authorities of the North, for the very reason that Jews of this type have an utter contempt for law, and a ravenous appetite for the forbidden fruit—a lustful eagerness enhanced by the racial novelty of the girls of the uncircumcised!

The Frank case is enough to depress the most hopeful student of the times. It has shown us how the capitalists of Big Money regard the poor man’s daughter. It has shown us what our daily papers will do in the interest of wealthy criminals. It has shown us how differently the law deals with the rich man and the poor. It has shown us that some of our lawyers, members of the Bar Association, are ready to use crook detectives and crook witnesses to defeat Justice.

It has shown us that these lawyers are eager to have the Federal Courts step into the province of our State Courts, and set a precedent which would mean that whoever can hire the attorneys, can run the gamut of our State Courts, and then run the gamut of the Federal judiciary.

And the end will not even then be reached. If no court will disturb a righteous verdict, political pulls must be tried.

The most insidious, sinister and powerful pressure will be brought to bear upon the Pardon Board, and upon the Governor, to prevent the law from taking its course, and to give another depressing instance of “the difference, ’twixt the Rich and the Poor.”

It is fair and proper to assume that our State officials will do their duty, “without fear, favor, affection, reward, or the hope thereof.”

Collier’s, however, has taken it upon itself to announce that Leo Frank will not be executed.

Therefore, Collier’s has been guilty of forestalling the action of the Georgia Pardon Board, and the Georgia governor.

Collier’s is publishing a series of articles on the case. They are similar to Connolly’s rigmaroles in the Baltimore Sun. They repeat the one-sided statements of the Times and the World. Burns seems to have won the confidence of Mr. Connolly, and Mr. Connolly’s articles sound loudly of William J. Burns.

These newspaper articles of the propaganda of Big Money against the Law, are all based on Leo Frank’s ex parte statement, which he dared not submit to the test of a cross-examination.

Not one of these newspaper articles deals with the undisputed facts which form the chain of circumstantial evidence, solidifying the work of the direct testimony.

These intensely partisan articles are predicated upon the alleged fact, that some men on the streets of Atlanta said, “Hang the d-n Jew!” and upon the baseless assumption that the jury heard these cries, and were controlled by them.

Not once have these hirelings for the defence argued the actual, proved, material, controlling facts that compelled the verdict.

What do rich Jews care for Jews who are poor?

Suppose Leo Frank had been a moneyless Hebrew immigrant, recently arrived from Poland, and peddling about from house to house to get a few dollars for the wife and child he left behind in the war-zone, would the wealthy Jews, of Athens, Atlanta, Baltimore, Brooklyn, Philadelphia and New York be spending half-a-million dollars to save him from the legal consequences of premeditated and horrible crime?

Or suppose Mary Phagan had been Jacob Schiff’s daughter, or Belmont’s daughter, or Pulitzer’s daughter, or Och’s daughter, or Collier’s daughter, would Leo Frank be the subject of a propaganda of libelous misrepresentations of the people of Georgia?

It hasn’t been so long ago, since Collier’s published the slander on Southern white women, in which the editor alleged that the white women accused negro men of rape, TO HIDE THE SHAME OF CONSENT!

Having championed the negro rapist against the Southern white woman, Collier’s now champions an abnormal Sodomite, who comes as near carrying it on his face, as any lascivious degenerate ever did.

William J. Burns knows that he has discredited himself, and he is now using C.P. Connolly as his megaphone. C.P. Connolly is flooding the country with literature, finely gotten up on glossy paper, and illustrated by an idealized cut of the horribly sensual face of Leo Frank.

The purpose is to divide public opinion, create mawkish sentiment, and manufacture a sympathy which will influence the authorities. The most outrageous misrepresentations about the Atlanta “mob,” and the Atlanta military, and the terrorizing of the jury, are being recklessly circulated, to save as guilty a man as was ever arraigned, and to besmirch a State whose laws, juries and judges are notoriously inclined to the utmost verge of leniency.

There was no Big Money to push the case against Leo Frank. There were honest Atlanta police-officers, an honest Pinkerton detective, some white girls and white men who could neither be bullied nor bought; twelve honest jurors in the box and a just judge on the bench; an able, fearless and energetic Solicitor-General as the State’s representative; and a chain of proved facts and circumstances, which apart from negro evidence, excluded every other reasonable hypothesis, save that of the defendant’s guilt.

Above all, towered the Supreme Court of Georgia, which ignored the attempted intimidation of the Atlanta Journal—a Georgia paper that prostituted itself to the propaganda of Big Money and declared that the execution of this Beattie, this McCue, this Durant, this Leftie Louie, would be “judicial murder.”

Leo Frank and Mary Phagan, the pursuer and the pursued, the hawk and the dove, the wolf and the lamb—there they are! The bones of the little Georgia girl are mouldering in the ground, while Leo Frank poses for another photograph and composes another statement, and his rich, powerful champions declare defiantly that he will not be punished.

May the Almighty source of Justice and of Power, give to the Governor of Georgia the strength to withstand all blandishments, all improper influences, all mawkish appeals, and to stand firm, BY THE LAW, and do his duty, as the jurors and the judges have done theirs.

The systematic and hugely expensive campaign of slander that has been waged against the people of Georgia in regard to this case has logically and necessarily created this kind of a situation: to-wit—

If the Pardon Board, or the Governor, intervenes, that intervention will be inevitably understood to be a condemnation of the jury, of Judge L.S. Roan, of Judge Benjamin H. Hill, and of the Supreme Court.

The charges made by Frank’s lawyers, by Frank himself, by William J. Burns, by the big Jewish newspapers, and by Collier’s, strike at the integrity of our judicial system, and the racial fairness of our people.

The courts are accused of trying this man by riot and hysteria, instead of by evidence and law. The people are accused of condemning him because he is a Jew, and on the unsupported testimony of a negro!

Are those charges true? If they are, the courts and the people of Georgia are eternally disgraced.

The Big Money propagandists say that the charges are true.

Alleging them to be true, the propagandists demand that the Pardon Board and the Governor change the sentence of the Law.

Shall this charge be countenanced by the Pardon Board, and the Governor?

Shall wealthy outsiders invade the State of Georgia, and take this case into their own hands? Shall foreign influences usurp the functions of our courts, and dominate the administration of our laws?

No other State tries its criminals in the newspapers, in the pulpits, in the banks, or in the back-rooms where politicians juggle.

The daily papers and Collier’s did not attempt to dictate to Virginia, in the McCue and Beattie cases. Nor did the papers attempt to annul the law, to save the lives of the gunmen who shot the Jew gambler.

Infinitely worse than the Rosenthal case, infinitely worse than the McCue and Beattie cases, is that of Leo Frank, the libertine who kept after this little girl, and kept after her, AND KEPT AFTER HER, with the lust of a satyr, and the ruthless determination that she should not escape him.

 

All over this great Republic lawlessness is raging like the wild waves of a stormy sea. All over this Christian land the crimes against women are taking wider range, vaster proportions, and types more fiendish. The white-slaver stands almost openly in crowded streets, in waiting rooms, and at factory doors, with his net in his hands, ready to cast it over some innocent, unsuspecting girl. The lascivious employer—from the highest to the lowest, from the lawyer and politician who advertise for type-writers and stenographers, down to the department stores, the small factories, the laundries and the sweat-shops—are on the lookout for poor girls and young women who will exchange virtue for “a good time.”

Do not we all know it?

Where the girl is of the age of consent, and consents, it is bad enough, God knows!

But where the girl is good, and wants to stay so, and she is pursued, and importuned, and entrapped, and is not permitted to keep the one jewel that her poverty allows her, but is forcibly robbed of it, and then killed to hush her mouth—O what shall we say of that?

And what are we to think of the men, and the women, who can forget the poor, weak, lonely little heroine who died, for her honor—amid this magnificent people who rear monuments to regiments of strong men who have died for principle?

The Creator that made me, best knows how I revere brave and good men that stand the storm, resist temptation, keep to the right path, and go to their graves—martyrs to Faith, and Duty, and Honor—rather than surrender the glorious crown of Manhood.

But the words have never been coined which can express what a true man feels for the woman who is so great, in the divine simplicity of unconquerable innocence, that she, like the snow-white ermine of the frozen Arctic, will die, rather than soil the vestment that God gave her.

In this day of fading ideals and disappearing landmarks, little Mary Phagan’s heroism is an heirloom, than which there is nothing more precious among the old red hills of Georgia.

Sleep, little girl! Sleep in your humble grave! But if the angels are good to you, in the realms beyond the troubled sunset and the clouded stars, they will let you know that many an aching heart in Georgia beats for you, and many a tear, from eyes unused to weep, has paid you a tribute too sacred for words.

* * *

Transcribed by Penelope Lee for the American Mercury.

On the 100th anniversaries of Tom Watson’s subsequent articles in this series — that is, in March, August, September, and October of this year — we will continue the series to its completion here on National VanguardPublished with the permission of  the American Mercury.

____________

APPENDIX

The Historic Publication of Tom Watson’s Essays on the Leo Frank Case

by Bradford L. Huie, the American Mercury

PREVIOUSLY AVAILABLE only in scattered and tattered library archives and in imperfectly rendered scans of the originals, this important historical series has now been fully transcribed and digitized by Penelope Lee of the American Mercury staff.

Tom Watson is often mentioned in modern books and articles on the Frank case, but authors promoting the “received narrative” — that Frank was an innocent victim of anti-Semitism (and such are almost all authors today) — never cite him at length, only quoting a sentence or two, or even a fragment, to illustrate that he called rich Jews “rich Jews” — or that he was highly critical of Roman Catholicism — or some such selection designed to shock modern sensibilities to such an extent that any right-thinking man or woman would immediately conclude that nothing Tom Watson could say could possibly have any value.

But Tom Watson has a great deal to say of immense value to anyone who wants to fully comprehend the Leo Frank legal case — to anyone who wants to gain deeper insight into the mystery and intrigue surrounding the murder of Mary Phagan — to any honest man or woman who wants to understand how a strain of anti-Jewish feeling took root in the largely philo-Semitic South — and to anyone who cares about the influence of money and media on our justice system.

Nowhere, except in Watson’s articles, do we have such a fair and full exposition of the case against Frank, which was enough to convince three juries and the judges of courts all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Nowhere, except in these pieces, do we have even an intimation of the underhanded dealings of the Burns detective agency and the Haas Finance Committee in suborning perjury and purchasing false testimony. Nowhere except from Watson’s pen do we have such a brilliant analysis of the facts in the Brief of Evidence, even bringing out angles ignored by the able lawyers on both sides of the case. Nowhere except here do we find the story of the ironic tragedy of how a massive Jewish campaign to exonerate Leo Frank and “fight anti-Semitism” had, in the South, the opposite effect of that intended.

It’s little known today, but, in the early stages of the case, both the prosecution and defense tried to recruit Watson for their respective legal teams. According to the Leo Frank Case and Trial Research Library, “Ironically, the Leo M. Frank legal defense fund that began growing rapidly after the murder of Mary Phagan was used for the purpose of trying to hire one of the best and most influential criminal lawyers in the South, firebrand Tom E. Watson, to defend Leo M. Frank for $5,000 — an impressive sum by 1913 standards. The State’s prosecution team also attempted to recruit Tom Watson, but for a fraction of the offer made by the Leo M. Frank defense fund. Watson turned down offers from both parties.” Watson was later to be a U.S. Senator, and had earlier been a candidate for Vice President of the United States for the Populist Party, sharing the ticket with William Jennings Bryan for President.

One of the most preposterous allegations made by Frank partisans in recent years is that Watson’s “inflammatory” writings poisoned the atmosphere of the trial and swayed the jurors — a claim that makes one wonder just how familiar with the case these “expert” writers are after all, since Frank’s trial ended in August 1913, and Watson’s first public mention of the case wasn’t until March 1914.

Herewith, dear reader, with iterated thanks to Miss Lee for her monumental task of hand transcription of this book-length collection, we present the full Watson’s Magazine series on the murder of Mary Phagan and the trial and lynching of Leo Frank.

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/tom-watson-the-leo-frank-case/feed/ 1
The Beast as Saint: The Truth About Martin Luther King http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/the-beast-as-saint-the-truth-about-martin-luther-king-2/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/the-beast-as-saint-the-truth-about-martin-luther-king-2/#comments Mon, 19 Jan 2015 06:52:43 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2083

Originally produced in 1994 as a National Alliance radio broadcast and mass distribution booklet, the audio track of this program was rerecorded by me in 2012 at the request of the talented video producer calling himself Ares, and is incorporated into the video version above.

by Kevin Alfred Strom (the text of a speech given by Mr. Strom in 1994 on the nationwide radio program, American Dissident Voices)

WHEN THE COMMUNISTS TOOK OVER a country, one of the first things that they did was to confiscate all the privately-held weapons, to deny the people the physical ability to resist tyranny. But even more insidious than the theft of the people’s weapons was the theft of their history. Official Communist “historians” rewrote history to fit the current party line. In many countries, revered national heroes were excised from the history . . . → Read More: The Beast as Saint: The Truth About Martin Luther King]]>

Originally produced in 1994 as a National Alliance radio broadcast and mass distribution booklet, the audio track of this program was rerecorded by me in 2012 at the request of the talented video producer calling himself Ares, and is incorporated into the video version above.

by Kevin Alfred Strom (the text of a speech given by Mr. Strom in 1994 on the nationwide radio program, American Dissident Voices)

WHEN THE COMMUNISTS TOOK OVER a country, one of the first things that they did was to confiscate all the privately-held weapons, to deny the people the physical ability to resist tyranny. But even more insidious than the theft of the people’s weapons was the theft of their history. Official Communist “historians” rewrote history to fit the current party line. In many countries, revered national heroes were excised from the history books, or their real deeds were distorted to fit Communist ideology, and Communist killers and criminals were converted into official “saints.” Holidays were declared in honor of the beasts who murdered countless nations. Did you know that much the same process has occurred right here in America?

Every January, the media go into a kind of almost spastic frenzy of adulation for the so-called “Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.” King has even had a national holiday declared in his honor, an honor accorded to no other American, not Washington, not Jefferson, not Lincoln. (Washington and Lincoln no longer have holidays — they share the generic-sounding “President’s Day.”) A federal judge has sealed the FBI files on King until the year 2027. What are they hiding? Let’s take a look at this modern-day plastic god.

Even his name is a fake.Born in 1929, King was the son of a Black preacher known at the time only as “Daddy King.” “Daddy King” named his son Michael. In 1935, “Daddy King” had an inspiration to name himself after the Protestant reformer Martin Luther. He declared to his congregation that henceforth they were to refer to him as “Martin Luther King” and to his son as “Martin Luther King, Jr.” None of this name changing was ever legalized in court. “Daddy” King’s son’s real name is to this day Michael King.

King’s Brazen Cheating

We read in Michael Hoffman’s Holiday for a Cheater:

The first public sermon that King ever gave, in 1947 at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, was plagiarized from a homily by Protestant clergyman Harry Emerson Fosdick entitled “Life is What You Make It,” according to the testimony of King’s best friend of that time, Reverend Larry H. Williams. The first book that King wrote, Stride Toward Freedom, was plagiarized from numerous sources, all unattributed, according to documentation recently assembled by sympathetic King scholars Keith D. Miller, Ira G. Zepp, Jr., and David J. Garrow. And no less an authoritative source than the four senior editors of The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. (an official publication of the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Inc., whose staff includes King’s widow Coretta), stated of King’s writings at both Boston University and Crozer Theological Seminary: “Judged retroactively by the standards of academic scholarship, [his writings] are tragically flawed by numerous instances of plagiarism…. Appropriated passages are particularly evident in his writings in his major field of graduate study, systematic theology.” King’s essay, “The Place of Reason and Experience in Finding God,” written at Crozer, pirated passages from the work of theologian Edgar S. Brightman, author of The Finding of God. Another of King’s theses, “Contemporary Continental Theology,” written shortly after he entered Boston University, was largely stolen from a book by Walter Marshall Horton. King’s doctoral dissertation, “A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Harry Nelson Wieman,” for which he was awarded a PhD in theology, contains more than fifty complete sentences plagiarized from the PhD dissertation of Dr. Jack Boozer, “The Place of Reason in Paul Tillich’s Concept of God.”

According to The Martin Luther King Papers, in King’s dissertation “only 49 per cent. of sentences in the section on Tillich contain five or more words that were King’s own….”!

In The Journal of American History, June 1991, page 87, David J. Garrow, a leftist academic who is sympathetic to King, says that King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, who also served as his secretary, was an accomplice in his repeated cheating. Reading Garrow’s article, one is led to the inescapable conclusion that King cheated because he had chosen for himself a political role in which a PhD would be useful, and, lacking the intellectual ability to obtain the title fairly, went after it by any means necessary. Why, then, one might ask, did the professors at Crozer Theological Seminary and Boston University grant him passing grades and a PhD? Garrow states on page 89: “King’s academic compositions, especially at Boston University, were almost without exception little more than summary descriptions… and comparisons of other’s writings. Nonetheless, the papers almost always received desirable letter grades, strongly suggesting that King’s professors did not expect more….”

The editors of The Martin Luther King Jr. Papers state that “…the failure of King’s teachers to notice his pattern of textual appropriation is somewhat remarkable….”

But researcher Michael Hoffman tells us “…actually the malfeasance of the professors is not at all remarkable. King was politically correct, he was Black, and he had ambitions. The leftist [professors were] happy to award a doctorate to such a candidate no matter how much fraud was involved. Nor is it any wonder that it has taken forty years for the truth about King’s record of nearly constant intellectual piracy to be made public.”

Monument reminiscent of Soviet 'socialist realism'Supposed scholars, who in reality shared King’s vision of a racially mixed and Marxist America, purposely covered up his cheating for decades. The cover-up still continues. From the New York Times of October 11, 1991, page 15, we learn that on October 10th of that year, a committee of researchers at Boston University admitted that, “There is no question but that Dr. King plagiarized in the dissertation.” However, despite its finding, the committee said that “No thought should be given to the revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree,” an action the panel said “would serve no purpose.”

No purpose, indeed! Justice demands that, in light of his willful fraud as a student, the titles “reverend” and “doctor” should be removed from King’s name.

Communist Beliefs and Connections

Well friends, he is not a legitimate reverend, he is not a bona fide PhD, and his name isn’t really “Martin Luther King, Jr.” What’s left? Just a sexual degenerate, an America-hating Communist, and a criminal betrayer of even the interests of his own people.

On Labor Day, 1957, a special meeting was attended by Martin Luther King and four others at a strange institution called the Highlander Folk School in Monteagle, Tennessee. The Highlander Folk School was a Communist front, having been founded by Myles Horton (Communist Party organizer for Tennessee) and Don West (Communist Party organizer for North Carolina). The leaders of this meeting with King were the aforementioned Horton and West, along with Abner Berry and James Dumbrowski, all open and acknowledged members of the Communist Party, USA. The agenda of the meeting was a plan to tour the Southern states to initiate demonstrations and riots.

Bayard RustinFrom 1955 to 1960, Martin Luther King’s associate, advisor, and personal secretary was one Bayard Rustin. In 1936 Rustin joined the Young Communist League at New York City College. Convicted of draft-dodging, he went to prison for two years in 1944. On January 23, 1953 the Los Angeles Times reported his conviction and sentencing to jail for 60 days for lewd vagrancy and homosexual perversion. Rustin attended the 16th Convention of the Communist Party, USA in February, 1957. One month later, he and King founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, or SCLC for short. The president of the SCLC was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The vice-president of the SCLC was the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, who was also the president of an identified Communist front known as the Southern Conference Educational Fund, an organization whose field director, a Mr. Carl Braden, was simultaneously a national sponsor of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, of which you may have heard. The program director of the SCLC was the Reverend Andrew Young, in more recent years Jimmy Carter’s ambassador to the UN and mayor of Atlanta. Young, by the way, was trained at the Highlander Folk School, previously mentioned.

Fred ShuttlesworthSoon after returning from a trip to Moscow in 1958, Rustin organized the first of King’s famous marches on Washington. The official organ of the Communist Party, The Worker, openly declared the march to be a Communist project. Although he left King’s employ as secretary in 1961, Rustin was called upon by King to be second in command of the much larger march on Washington which took place on August 28, 1964.

Bayard Rustin’s replacement in 1961 as secretary and advisor to King was Jack O’Dell, also known as Hunter Pitts O’Dell. According to official records, in 1962 Jack O’Dell was a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party, USA. He had been listed as a Communist Party member as early as 1956. O’Dell was also given the job of acting executive director for SCLC activities for the entire Southeast, according to the St. Louis Globe-Democrat of October 26, 1962. At that time, there were still some patriots in the press corps, and word of O’Dell’s party membership became known.

What did King do? Shortly after the negative news reports, King fired O’Dell with much fanfare. And he then, without the fanfare, immediately hired him again as director of the New York office of the SCLC, as confirmed by the Richmond News-Leader of September 27, 1963.

Robert C. Williams, of Havana's Radio Free DixieIn 1963 a Black man from Monroe, North Carolina named Robert Williams made a trip to Beijing, China. Exactly 20 days before King’s 1964 march on Washington, Williams successfully urged Mao Tse-Tung to speak out on behalf of King’s movement. Mr. Williams was also around this time maintaining his primary residence in Cuba, from which he made regular broadcasts to the southern United States, three times a week, from high-power AM transmitters in Havana under the title “Radio Free Dixie.” In these broadcasts, he urged violent attacks by Blacks against White Americans.

During this period, Williams wrote a book entitled Negroes With Guns. The writer of the foreword for this book? None other than “Martin Luther King, Jr.” It is also interesting to note that the editors and publishers of this book were to a man all supporters of the infamous Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

According to King’s biographer and sympathizer David J. Garrow, “King privately described himself as a Marxist.” In his 1981 book, The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr., Garrow quotes King as saying in SCLC staff meetings, “…we have moved into a new era, which must be an era of revolution…. The whole structure of American life must be changed…. We are engaged in the class struggle.”

Jewish Communist Stanley Levison can best be described as King’s behind-the-scenes “handler.” Levison, who had for years been in charge of the secret funnelling of Soviet funds to the Communist Party, USA, was King’s mentor and was actually the brains behind many of King’s more successful ploys. It was Levison who edited King’s book, Stride Toward Freedom. It was Levison who arranged for a publisher. Levison even prepared King’s income tax returns! It was Levison who really controlled the fund-raising and agitation activities of the SCLC. Levison wrote many of King’s speeches. King described Levison as one of his “closest friends.”

FBI: King Bought Sex With SCLC Money

The Federal Bureau of Investigation had for many years been aware of Stanley Levison’s Communist activities. It was Levison’s close association with King that brought about the initial FBI interest in King.

Assistant FBI Director SullivanLest you be tempted to believe the controlled media’s lie about “racists” in the FBI being out to “get” King, you should be aware that the man most responsible for the FBI’s probe of King was Assistant Director William C. Sullivan. Sullivan describes himself as a liberal, and says that initially “I was one hundred per cent. for King…because I saw him as an effective and badly needed leader for the Black people in their desire for civil rights.” The probe of King not only confirmed their suspicions about King’s Communist beliefs and associations, but it also revealed King to be a despicable hypocrite, an immoral degenerate, and a worthless charlatan.

According to Assistant Director Sullivan, who had direct access to the surveillance files on King which are denied the American people, King had embezzled or misapplied substantial amounts of money contributed to the “civil rights” movement. King used SCLC funds to pay for liquor, and numerous prostitutes both Black and White, who were brought to his hotel rooms, often two at a time, for drunken sex parties which sometimes lasted for several days. These types of activities were the norm for King’s speaking and organizing tours.

In fact, an outfit called the “National Civil Rights Museum” in Memphis, Tennessee, which is putting on display the two bedrooms from the Lorraine Motel where King stayed the night before he was shot, has declined to depict in any way the occupants of those rooms. That—according to exhibit designer Gerard Eisterhold—would be “close to blasphemy.” The reason? “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” spent his last night on Earth having sexual intercourse with two women at the motel and physically beating and abusing a third.

Sullivan also stated that King had alienated the affections of numerous married women. According to Sullivan, who in 30 years with the Bureau had seen everything there was to be seen of the seamy side of life, King was one of only seven people he had ever encountered who was such a total degenerate.

Noting the violence that almost invariably attended King’s supposedly “non-violent” marches, Sullivan’s probe revealed a very different King from the carefully crafted public image. King welcomed members of many different Black groups as members of his SCLC, many of them advocates and practitioners of violence. King’s only admonition on the subject was that they should embrace “tactical nonviolence.”

Sullivan also relates an incident in which King met in a financial conference with Communist Party representatives, not knowing that one of the participants was an infiltrator actually working for the FBI.

King idol at the National CathedralJ. Edgar Hoover personally saw to it that documented information on King’s Communist connections was provided to the President and to Congress. And conclusive information from FBI files was also provided to major newspapers and news wire services. But were the American people informed of King’s real nature? No, for even in the 1960s, the fix was in—the controlled media and the bought politicians were bound and determined to push their racial mixing program on America. King was their man and nothing was going to get in their way. With a few minor exceptions, these facts have been kept from the American people. The pro-King propaganda machine grinds on, and it is even reported that a serious proposal has been made to add some of King’s writings as a new book in the Bible.

Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of this radio program is far greater than to prove to you the immorality and subversion of this man called King.

I want you to start to think for yourselves.

I want you to consider this: What are the forces and motivation behind the controlled media’s active promotion of King?

Our children are victims of propaganda.What does it tell you about our politicians when you see them, almost without exception, falling all over themselves to honor King as a national hero?

What does it tell you about our society when any public criticism of this moral leper and Communist functionary is considered grounds for dismissal?

What does it tell you about the controlled media when you see how they have successfully suppressed the truth and held out a picture of King that can only be described as a colossal lie?

You need to think, my fellow Americans. You desperately need to wake up.

__________________

Bibliography

1. Hoffman, Michael A., Holiday for a Cheater, (Wiswell Ruffin House, Dresden, New York, 1992)

2. Steffgen, Kent H., Bondage of the Free, (Vanguard Books, Berkeley, California, 1966)

3. Garrow, David J., The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr., (W. W. Norton & Co, New York City, 1981)

Further information on King’s Communist connections and the FBI surveillance of Stanley Levison can be found in the Congressional Record.

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/the-beast-as-saint-the-truth-about-martin-luther-king-2/feed/ 1
Learning to Get Along http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/learning-to-get-along/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/learning-to-get-along/#comments Sun, 18 Jan 2015 20:24:50 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2047 Blacks and Whites Togetherby Dr. William L. Pierce

I SPOKE recently with an Alliance member just back from a year in Zaire (the former Belgian Congo). He is a government scientist who is obliged to spend most of his time in rather odd places: African jungles, Arabian deserts, polar icecaps, and the like. While in Zaire he took advantage of every opportunity to avail himself of White company, which is all too scarce there, and he became intimately familiar with the attitudes and ways of thinking of the permanent White residents of that country. The story he told me about his experiences chilled my blood — the more so because it had the solid ring of truth and agreed with reports from other places, such as Rhodesia (now “Zimbabwe”). (ILLUSTRATION: Whites joining Blacks . . . → Read More: Learning to Get Along]]> Blacks and Whites Togetherby Dr. William L. Pierce

I SPOKE recently with an Alliance member just back from a year in Zaire (the former Belgian Congo). He is a government scientist who is obliged to spend most of his time in rather odd places: African jungles, Arabian deserts, polar icecaps, and the like. While in Zaire he took advantage of every opportunity to avail himself of White company, which is all too scarce there, and he became intimately familiar with the attitudes and ways of thinking of the permanent White residents of that country. The story he told me about his experiences chilled my blood — the more so because it had the solid ring of truth and agreed with reports from other places, such as Rhodesia (now “Zimbabwe”). (ILLUSTRATION: Whites joining Blacks in cheering for anti-White policies in South Africa)

What our member said, in essence, is that the Whites in Zaire have “gone native.” After two weeks of work in the bush, our member would return to Kinshasa hungry for the sight of a White face. But the Whites, in the part of Kinshasa which used to be Leopoldville, outnumbered now more than 100 to one by Blacks, have managed to blend into the landscape so thoroughly that one can only pick them out of the Black crowds by the color of their skin; nothing else distinguishes them. One of them will pass another White on the sidewalk — perhaps the only other White he has encountered all day — without even a glance. To accost one of them is almost an affront; the attitude is, “Why should I stop to talk with you? You are nothing special to me.”

I suggested that, perhaps, this was merely an affectation employed to avoid arousing the suspicion or hostility of the Blacks all around them. Unfortunately, that is not so, he replied; the Whites who live permanently in Zaire have not only convinced the Blacks that they are no longer “White racists,” they have also convinced themselves. A common sight in the restaurants of Kinshasa is a blond Belgian with a coal-black African wife and a sickeningly multihued assortment of offspring; no one even looks up when racially mixed couples enter.

No Black country in Africa can operate without the presence of a White minority. By themselves, the Blacks cannot keep elevators or telephone systems operating, buses or taxis running, sewage systems or roadways in repair. Many of the Black countries have had a whole generation of political independence now, and they have sent tens of thousands of their citizens off to European or American universities for technical training. But they have learned the bitter lesson that, no matter how many diploma-holding Blacks an African country may boast of, it very rapidly sinks back into the jungle unless there is a tiny minority — often less than one-tenth of one percent of the population — of Whites present to keep things running, do the planning, and solve the problems which inevitably arise.

A Black may come back to Zaire from a White university with a degree in electrical engineering, but unless there is a White to tell him to do it, he seems incapable of so much as replacing a blown fuse on his own initiative. Even at such relatively non-technical occupations as farming, the Blacks are dependent on Whites. More than one-third of the agricultural output of Zambia (the former Northern Rhodesia), for example, is the product of White farmers there, who make up much less than one percent of the population. Because of this, every Black nation — even those which have indulged in mass raping and throat-cutting orgies against their White minorities in typically Black celebrations of independence, as was the case with the Belgian Congo/Zaire — tolerates a White minority. And because even a second-rate White man, who would be at the bottom of the social ladder in a White country, can live well and easily in an African country, the Whites who fled from the Congo during the bloody, anti-White paroxysms of the early 1960s have come trickling back.

But now there is a new social contract between Black and White. Before, the White was the undisputed master everywhere, and the Blacks — all of them — addressed him as such. They may or may not have loved the White man, but they thoroughly respected and feared him. Now the White man has voluntarily surrendered both his position as master and his claim to respect. He asks only to be tolerated, in return for the services he can perform.

The Blacks, however, have demanded one thing else of him; that he cease being a member of a race apart. They have demanded that he sleep with their women and give them his, that he give up his racial pride altogether, that he cut all his ties to his own race and sink down into theirs, that he accept them as brothers and equals. In Zaire that is what he has done.

And the White man is in the process of doing the same thing in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. In April of this year the United States, Great Britain, and other Western countries forced the White Rhodesians, outnumbered 20 to one by Blacks, to accept a Black government headed by the Black Marxist leader of a terrorist band which had spent years raping White women and butchering White children. Within days after the change of government the Whites who chose to stay in Rhodesia and submit to Black rule were obsequiously addressing their new president as “Comrade Mugabe.”

What has taken place in the Congo and Rhodesia is frightening not so much because it proves that some Whites are willing to crawl for their supper — we’ve known that to be the case for a long time — but for two other reasons: First, as our member observed during his year in Zaire, the Whites there are not just pretending to have forgotten their Whiteness and to have cut themselves off from their race; they have actually done it. Approaching them on the basis of shared blood and a common heritage not only frightens them, it also offends their new sensibilities. They want nothing to do now with anything which smacks of “racism.” Their conversion is complete. They have become White niggers.

Second, the phenomenon reveals a general characteristic of man’s nature. What has already happened in Kinshasa and is well underway in Salisbury is also beginning to happen in Johannesburg — and in every city in America as well. Americans who were adults during the 1960s and who have kept their equilibrium since then are aware of the enormous shift in White public opinion which has taken place in the United States in the past two decades.

In 1959 or 1960 an announcement by the Federal government that henceforth the racial composition of the students at all public schools in the country would be “balanced” by forced busing; that all employers must give preference to “disadvantaged” minorities in hiring and promoting; that White neighborhoods were to be broken up by the mass resettlement of welfare Blacks and non-White immigrants in them — would have caused an armed uprising in every region of the country and among all classes of the White population. Today, although such a program still causes a bit of grumbling, White politicians are able to campaign for office on platforms incorporating similar measures and entertain reasonable hopes of being elected.

In 1960 there were relatively few parts of the country where a racially mixed couple could appear in public without arousing open hostility. A daughter who brought a Black boyfriend home risked being disowned by her family — if her father restrained his urge to shoot her and the Black on the spot. In the last few years, however, miscegenation has spread like a metastasizing cancer throughout the nation, and few now raise their hands or their voices against it.

In part, of course, these changes have been brought about by armed compulsion. There has been resentment and resistance against them every step of the way, and were it not for the Federal government’s awesome firepower and massive use of police agencies, they would not have been accomplished — at least, not so quickly. But the fact remains that the White public has, by and large, adapted itself to the new order of things. A conversion has taken place — not as thorough a conversion as in the Congo yet, but a conversion of the same sort, nevertheless — in which many Whites who formerly regarded the old order as right and proper now regard the new order in that light.

I gave a speech in New York last summer in which I illustrated the tendency of people to adapt morally and spiritually to changed circumstances by using a rather far-fetched and hypothetical example: Suppose, I said, the Soviet Union launched a lightning invasion of the United States and, after a few weeks of fighting, subdued our armed forces. Suppose the Soviet victors, having set up a Marxist regime here, then brought two or three million English-speaking Russians over and settled them among the conquered Americans, for the purpose of spying on any malcontents or overt anti-communists and reporting them to the secret police.

Suppose further that, after three months or so of taking down the names and addresses of all potential troublemakers, the authorities rounded up all these people and put them into concentration camps. They might amount to as many as a couple of million Americans altogether: perhaps five percent of the adult, male Whites in the country.

The point I then made with my example was that it would not be necessary for the Soviet rulers to shoot these Americans or even keep them locked up in order to quell all resistance. The Soviets could instead proceed as follows: After explaining to the Americans that the old life they had known was gone forever, that there was no way for them to escape communist rule, nowhere left for them to flee, and no one to come to their aid, 100,000 sturdy Russians, each armed with a stout, oak table leg, would take the prisoners aside and beat each of them to within a quarter inch of his life, while those not yet beaten watched.

A good, five-minute beating, administered scientifically, should cause perhaps 10 percent of the prisoners to die from their injuries. Perhaps another five percent would turn out to be recalcitrant and would eventually have to be shot. But the remaining 85 percent of the pick of America’s manhood would see the error of their ways. Before they were even out of their bandages and casts they would be asking themselves how they could have failed to see that anti-communism (just like “racism”) is not only a thing of the past but is morally indefensible, wicked, and the mark of a loser. Within another month they would be enthusiastically parroting Marxist slogans — and believing them.

As I said, that example is rather far-fetched, but the phenomenon it illustrates is all too real. Indeed, physical violence is not necessary to bring about the type of conversion described. The mere threat of violence, provided it is credible and is combined with sufficiently intense moral pressure, works quite as well. What is happening in the Republic of South Africa today provides an excellent example of this.

Whites have been living in South Africa since the 17th century — approximately as long as they have been living in North America. The aboriginal inhabitants of the land which became South Africa were Hottentots and Bushmen, members of the yellow-skinned Capoid race, who now constitute only a small minority there. The ancestors of most of the Blacks (Bantus) in South Africa, who now outnumber the Whites five to one, entered that area during the 19th century. For nearly 300 years the Whites ruled the land as masters, first over the Capoids and then over their Bantu successors. Now the Whites are questioning their own right to rule, and, step by fatal step, they are abandoning all their former prerogatives.

Now that apartheid has fallen and affirmative action policies in place, White South Africans are now stricken with poverty, some living in cabins meant to be garden sheds. White genocide is now running rampant across South Africa with numerous murders, rapes and tortures taking place at alarming rates.

Now that apartheid has fallen, a number of White South Africans are now stricken with poverty, some living in cabins meant to be garden sheds. White genocide is now taking place across southern Africa — with murder, rape, and torture taking place at alarming rates.

White South Africans have suffered no physical violence to speak of, but the threat is clearly there, as Black terrorist groups launch their occasional raids from neighboring, Black-ruled areas or stir up local Black workers and students to stone-throwing riots. Even without the riots and bombings, the mere physical presence of the Black majority is threatening. It is a regrettable fact that most soft, city-bred Whites, whether they pretend to like Blacks or not, fear them.

The moral pressure in South Africa (as in America) is provided by the Christian churches and the Jewish media working in tandem. The Dutch Reformed Church, Calvinist in doctrine, has always had an extraordinarily strong influence over the Whites of Boer, or Dutch, stock, while the Whites of English origin have allowed virtually all their news and entertainment media to slip into Jewish hands. (South Africa has twice as many Jews per White inhabitant as the United States.)

From the earliest days of White settlement in southern Africa, Christian missionaries have played a destructive role there. Virtually every Black terrorist leader in Africa has been educated in a Christian mission school and incited by priests or parsons to demand “equality” for Blacks. Today the White Rhodesians who remain in Black-ruled Zimbabwe are being told by their preachers that it is “the will of God” for them to be ruled by Blacks, while the White citizens of the Republic of South Africa read each day in their newspapers a slightly different variation on a single theme: They must “change their ways before it is too late,” meaning they must accept Blacks as equals or terrible things will happen to them.

Already there are South African student organizations, businessmen’s organizations, and church-related organizations acting on this threat by working to undermine the nation’s system for keeping Blacks and Whites from mixing (apartheid) while the government either gives its blessing or looks the other way. Judging from these groups’ public statements, some of them seem to believe that if they’re sufficiently generous and apologetic toward the Blacks now, when the Blacks eventually get the upper hand the latter will be grateful for past favors and will tolerate the continued presence of Whites in Africa — perhaps even allowing them to keep their wealth and continue their comfortable lifestyles. Others, especially the church-related groups, seem almost to hope the Blacks won’t be grateful, but will allow Whites to remain anyway, perhaps as menials. The thought of being punished for their past “racism” brings on a delicious shiver of anticipation.

The worldwide sickness of the White race — the loss of pride, of virility, of honor, and of contact with reality — is rooted in several things. In part it comes from ignorance, which in turn is the consequence of the breakdown and subversion of our educational systems, so that they no longer provide White men and women with historical roots; and in part it is merely an aspect of the general spiritual malaise of the times — in particular, of the prevalent egoism and materialism, which lead our people to place prosperity, comfort, and immediate personal safety ahead of all else.

But it also has a distinctly Pavlovian aspect, as illustrated by my hypothetical story of the Soviet invasion, and that is an important fact for us to keep in mind.

The meaning of this fact for the short term is that our race is in even greater peril than we might otherwise have realized.

The long-term significance is this: Only a relatively small minority of the White population has any absolute sense of direction, of right and wrong. The majority can be conditioned to do or to approve of anything.

That’s just one more reason why democracy is such a catastrophe.

 * * *

From Attack! No. 79, 1980, transcribed by Anthony Collins and edited by Vanessa Neubauer, from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/learning-to-get-along/feed/ 2
Anne Frank Hoax Exposed http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/anne-frank-hoax-exposed/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/anne-frank-hoax-exposed/#comments Sun, 18 Jan 2015 20:04:17 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2031 Anne FrankClever Jew Made Millions from Dead Daughter

by Dr. William L. Pierce

TUCKED AWAY ON pages 119 and 122 of the October 6 issue of Der Spiegel, a weekly German news magazine comparable to Time or Newsweek, was a news item of considerable significance: A scientific analysis of the manuscript purported to be the original diary of Anne Frank, a Jewish girl who died in a German concentration camp during the Second World War, has revealed that the manuscript could not have been written before 1951, six years after the end of the war. (ILLUSTRATION: Anne Frank. She died of typhus in 1945 — but she didn’t write a diary.)

The significance of Der Spiegel’s revelation of this fraud is twofold. First, the printing of the story in a mass-circulation publication constitutes a major break with . . . → Read More: Anne Frank Hoax Exposed]]> Anne FrankClever Jew Made Millions from Dead Daughter

by Dr. William L. Pierce

TUCKED AWAY ON pages 119 and 122 of the October 6 issue of Der Spiegel, a weekly German news magazine comparable to Time or Newsweek, was a news item of considerable significance: A scientific analysis of the manuscript purported to be the original diary of Anne Frank, a Jewish girl who died in a German concentration camp during the Second World War, has revealed that the manuscript could not have been written before 1951, six years after the end of the war. (ILLUSTRATION: Anne Frank. She died of typhus in 1945 — but she didn’t write a diary.)

The significance of Der Spiegel’s revelation of this fraud is twofold. First, the printing of the story in a mass-circulation publication constitutes a major break with past treatments of similar news. The German news media, though not under the Jewish monopoly control which blights the media in this country, generally follow a pro-Jewish line, a heritage from the immediate postwar years when the Allied occupation forces gave publishing licenses only to those Germans who had proved their disloyalty to their country during the war. Consequently, most news tending to cast doubt on Jewish stories about gas chambers and the like from the World War II era has either been blacked out altogether or downplayed and given very unsympathetic treatment. The present article, though accompanied by copious apologies and held back for six months after it became news, would not have been printed at all a year or two ago.

Beyond this, the exposure of the Anne Frank forgery is important because of the sheer magnitude of the fraud and the key role it has played in underpinning the entire Jewish scenario of the war. What is known as a fact is that one Otto Frank, a Jewish merchant, formerly of Frankfurt, who had been arrested in the Netherlands and interned in the Auschwitz concentration camp during the war, began visiting publishers in 1946 with what he claimed was a diary written by his young daughter during the time the Frank family was hiding from the German police in occupied Holland. The girl later perished at Auschwitz, Frank said.

The diary, filled with touching adolescent reveries and homely little anecdotes, was exactly what the Jewish “Holocaust” propagandists were looking for: a highly effective piece of ammunition to generate a maudlin, emotion-laden sympathy for the poor, persecuted Jews — as typified by Anne Frank — and generate hatred against the wicked Germans, who had killed her and six million other Jews.

Otto Frank cashed in on the diary in a big way. Not only did he find a publisher, but he found people hot to buy stage and film rights as well. Shortly after its appearance in book form, the diary had been translated into a score of languages and printed in millions of copies, from all of which Frank received royalties. The English version alone, under the title Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl, has sold more than 4,000,000 copies to date. A television dramatization based on the diary was aired in this country last month, accompanied by the usual ballyhoo.

Almost from the beginning there were charges that the diary was a hoax. Some of these charges were based on the gross inconsistencies between various translations and editions of the diary in book form; it was clear that the text had been heavily edited to help it sell well in different markets. Other charges were based on internal inconsistencies and credulity-straining elements in the diary itself.

And then there was the matter of the script for the film version of the diary: Otto Frank was sued by a New York scriptwriter, Meyer Levin, who claimed that Frank had taken large portions of a script he, Levin, had written and had not paid Levin for his work. The court ordered Frank to pay Levin $50,000. One can easily understand why some observers began to wonder how much, if any, of the content of the various Anne Frank books, films, and plays in circulation was actually written by a little Jewish girl named Anne Frank.

Otto Frank, father of Anne, displays what he says is his daughter’s diary, written in 1942–1944 while hiding from the Gestapo. Recent scientific tests have proved the alleged diary could not have been written before 1951. Frank made millions from his forgery before his death this year.

Otto Frank, father of Anne, displays what he says is his daughter’s diary, written in 1942–1944 while hiding from the Gestapo. Recent scientific tests have proved the alleged diary could not have been written before 1951. Frank made millions from his forgery before his death this year.

In Germany, however, it was not wise to speculate about such matters publicly. The line laid down by the government and the media is that Anne Frank is gospel, and anyone who suggests otherwise leaves himself open to criminal charges (“defaming the victims of Nazi persecution”) as well as to civil suits. Otto Frank himself made a regular habit of hauling Anne Frank detractors into German courts, which invariably decided in his favor — until recently, that is.

When Hamburg pensioner Ernst Roemer, 76, began spreading the accusation that Otto Frank had himself written what he was passing off as his dead daughter’s diary, Frank sued him. As usual, the court upheld the authenticity of the diary. Handwriting experts testified that the entire diary, including loose notes and insertions, had been written by the same hand, and that hand was Anne Frank’s.

Roemer appealed the court’s decision against him, and more handwriting experts were called in. Their conclusion was the same: Everything in the diary was in the same handwriting; there was no forgery.

Roemer appealed again, and this time the court asked for the technical services of the Federal Criminal Office (Bundeskriminalamt, similar to our FBI), which carried out a careful analysis of the original manuscript of the diary with microscope and ultraviolet illumination in order to confirm its authenticity — in particular, to determine when it was written.

The report of the technical experts was given to the court in April of this year, and it contained a bombshell: large portions of the alleged “diary” were written in ballpoint pen ink — which was not manufactured prior to 1951!

Were it not for the previous testimony of the handwriting experts that the entire diary, including the portions written with ballpoint pen, is in the same hand, the father might have claimed that he only “edited” his daughter’s work, “clarifying” passages here and there. But the evidence was quite unambiguous.

For example, the testimony of Hamburg graphologist Minna Bekker in an earlier trial was: “The handwriting of the diary in the three bound volumes — including all notes and additions on the glued-in pages as well as the 338 pages of loose material — including all corrections and insertions is identical . . .”

Otto should have been more careful in his choice of writing instruments. It is now quite clear that he finished hoking up the “original” of the diary after he had found a publisher for what, in 1946, was nothing more than some rough notes and an idea in his head which seemed to have prospects for making him a lot of money with little effort. First a typescript for the publisher, and then, as sales of the book began to mount, a completed handwritten “original” to show to doubters.

Just after the report of the Federal Criminal Office was given to the court, Otto Frank conveniently died — before he could be asked a number of very interesting questions. Meanwhile, the worldwide Jewish propaganda apparatus has continued its promotion of the Anne Frank myth as if nothing had happened. Der Spiegel seems to be the only mass-circulation news periodical to have exposed the fraud to date.

 * * *

From Attack! No. 79, 1980, transcribed by Anthony Collins and edited by Vanessa Neubauer, from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/anne-frank-hoax-exposed/feed/ 0
What the Alliance Demands of Us http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/what-the-alliance-demands-of-us/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/what-the-alliance-demands-of-us/#comments Sun, 18 Jan 2015 19:49:07 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2027 William Pierce MeetingThis editorial has been condensed from a talk given to Washington-area members, supporters, and friends of the National Alliance on June 3, 1979.

 by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THE MARINES HAVE a recruiting slogan which the Alliance could easily adopt as its own, with only a slight alteration: The Alliance is looking for a few good men — and women. The emphasis is on both “few” and “good,” because there are, unfortunately, relatively few men and women today who have the qualities which the Alliance demands.

Anyone not intimately familiar with the task of the Alliance, with the types of problems we face, and with the human failings evoked by those problems may be excused for assuming that all the Alliance requires of a recruit, besides being White, is that . . . → Read More: What the Alliance Demands of Us]]> William Pierce MeetingThis editorial has been condensed from a talk given to Washington-area members, supporters, and friends of the National Alliance on June 3, 1979.

 by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THE MARINES HAVE a recruiting slogan which the Alliance could easily adopt as its own, with only a slight alteration: The Alliance is looking for a few good men — and women. The emphasis is on both “few” and “good,” because there are, unfortunately, relatively few men and women today who have the qualities which the Alliance demands.

Anyone not intimately familiar with the task of the Alliance, with the types of problems we face, and with the human failings evoked by those problems may be excused for assuming that all the Alliance requires of a recruit, besides being White, is that he or she be moderately intelligent, industrious, honest, brave, and so on — the rest of the boy scout virtues.

And, as a matter of fact, that’s about all we can hope for in the great majority of our members across the country. As a strictly practical matter, if a person in Seattle or Atlanta certifies that he is White, agrees with the Alliance, is willing to pay his dues, and says he wants to help, we can hardly fail to accept his membership application. We’re pleased to have him. We depend upon him for getting the Alliance message out to other potential recruits in Seattle or Atlanta and for providing the financial support the Alliance must have in order to exist.

But for our cadres, for those few good men and women who form the organizational backbone of the Alliance, who make up our operational staff, and who do the day-to-day work of the Alliance more is demanded; additional qualities are required.

Topping the list is this: The most essential quality demanded of every cadre is the ability and the willingness to put the good of the Alliance before his personal interests.

That is not just a mushy platitude, of the sort one expects to hear when joining the Rotary Club or the Masons; for us it is a hard rule. Every Alliance cadre is expected to develop the habit of thought which causes him to base his every decision, not on what is convenient or agreeable to him, not on his personal likes and dislikes, but only on what’s good for the Alliance. And then he must invariably act in accord with this ordering of priorities.

The Alliance cadre must learn to subordinate personal friendships and loyalties, as well as personal animosities, to the interests of the Alliance. But subordination does not mean annihilation. The Alliance does not require of anyone that he give up his own personality or his own individuality.

It is not required that he immerse himself in the Alliance in some Oriental sense. The Alliance is not an Oriental organization. It is an organization of healthy, dedicated, individual White men and women, who have different personalities, different likes and dislikes, and different types of friends.

Screen Shot 2015-01-05 at 8.39.09 PMThe Alliance is not interested in changing that. All the Alliance demands in this regard is that whenever a conflict arises between personal interests and Alliance interests, the Alliance cadre must put the Alliance’s interests first, ahead of his own. This requirement means, for example, that if a personal friend does something or says something harmful to the Alliance, and one must make a choice between the desire to keep the friend and the obligation to protect the Alliance, then one has no hesitation about what that choice will be.

It means that, when one is engaged in an Alliance activity which is supposed to be carried out in a certain way, one doesn’t try to change that way or to persuade others to change it to a way more agreeable to oneself — but, perhaps, less agreeable to the prospects of accomplishing the Alliance’s task successfully.

In view of what the Alliance is trying to do, this demand should seem reasonable to most of the people we attract. But we are living in the “me” generation, and we run across a great many people who are constitutionally incapable of complying with or even understanding this demand.

Perhaps it’s because when they were very young their parents gave them everything they wanted and never disciplined them, or perhaps it’s due to some other cause, but it is a fact that there are people who can no more comprehend the notion of subordinating their desires to the needs of the Alliance than a normal person can imagine what a spider feels when having sex or what a snake feels when shedding its skin; the idea of putting anything ahead of their personal interests is wholly alien to them.

No matter how clever or talented such a person is, he cannot become a good cadre. That is the case now, when the Alliance is subject to the strain of never having enough money to support its cadres properly, of having to put pressure on people to get the necessary work done; and it will be even more the case in the future, when a larger and stronger Alliance is subject to real persecution.

The fact is that we cannot afford to have cadres who cannot or will not put the Alliance first. Nor, for that matter, can any organization in our position.

The second quality that the Alliance demands of us is an undivided sense of responsibility for the work of the Alliance. The Alliance needs doers, not talkers; participants, not observers; diligent workers, not dilettantes.

The Alliance cadre cannot be a clock-watcher, a person concerned only with going through the motions of his task. He must be concerned with the outcome of everything he does, with the quality and effectiveness of his work. He must be willing to accept responsibility for his failures as well as for his successes.

Screen Shot 2015-01-05 at 8.39.30 PMThe Alliance needs worriers, men and women who do not assume that everything will somehow work out for the best, but who understand that the whole future rests on their shoulders and that if the Alliance fails in its task, the race will perish.

Finally, the Alliance demands that all its cadres have a long-range view of our task.

A great many people come to us with a short-range view. “Let’s get rid of the Blacks,” they say. “Let’s take the country back from the Jews. Let’s have a revolution. Let’s awaken the masses.” And they actually expect to see a revolution take place in a year’s time. When it doesn’t they usually become discouraged, lose interest, and quit.

There are others without quite such naive expectations, but who still have a far too limited vision of the task we are facing. They believe that one can build a mass movement of racially motivated White people in this country today simply by waving one’s arms and exhorting the masses to rise up. They envision tens of thousands of militant Whites on the march after a few months of intensive propagandizing and organizing.

Every organization encounters people with these short-range views — and some adapt their way of operation to these people. The leaders of such organizations keep waving their arms and dreaming up new gimmicks, in order to maintain the interest of members and supporters with short attention spans.

And this technique tends to work, because a person gullible enough to believe that America’s problems can be solved in a year is also gullible enough to believe that every new gimmick presented to him, every special project, is the one that’s going to do the trick, no matter how many gimmicks he’s been disappointed by in the past.

But the Alliance doesn’t operate that way.

If a new member with high hopes for a quick success signs up in Seattle and then loses interest after a year, there are no hard feelings. We’re happy to have had his help for a year.

But what the Alliance is trying to do now, above all else, is recruit a few good men and women, cadres who will be integrated into the organizational structure of the Alliance and on whom we can depend for a long time to come. When one of these people gives up, it sometimes disrupts an important program. Often, it would have been better if the Alliance had not come to depend on such a person in the first place.

So that’s why we don’t wave our arms and shout very much, why we don’t engage in a lot of hyperbolic rhetoric, why we don’t perform stunts for the controlled media in order to be mentioned in the newspapers. It’s because we aren’t trying to attract a lot of people with short attention spans.

There’ll be a time for them later. Right now they just tend to get in the way.

In summary, three qualities have been mentioned which the Alliance demands of its cadres:

It demands that we have the ability to and will always put Alliance interests ahead of our own.

It demands that we have a profound sense of personal responsibility for our work.

And it demands that we approach our work for the Alliance with a long-range view, understanding that our task is not something to be gotten over in a hurry, so that we can go back to what we were doing before, but that it is something to be worked on for as long as it takes for its final accomplishment — even if that means for the rest of our lives.

Just because the Alliance is now beginning to experience the first tiny trickle of success in its long and difficult program, we must not relax our vigilance or our discipline. Instead, success must make us be harder on ourselves and demand more of ourselves than ever before.

That is the road to total success, to complete success in accomplishing the Alliance’s task, and it is the only road.

 * * *

From Attack! No. 70, 1979, transcribed by Anthony Collins and edited by Vanessa Neubauer, from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/what-the-alliance-demands-of-us/feed/ 0
Jeffrey Epstein: The Uncovering http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/jeffrey-epstein-the-uncovering/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/jeffrey-epstein-the-uncovering/#comments Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:00:18 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2072 dershowitz_roberts_epsteinAmerican Dissident Voices broadcast of January 17, 2015

Listen to the broadcast

by Kevin Alfred Strom

BACK IN 1999, the maverick Jewish director Stanley Kubrick — who once famously said that “Adolf Hitler got almost everything right” — produced his last film, Eyes Wide Shut, a chilling look into a secret society of elitists and wealthy men, many of them obvious Jews, using young White women as sex slaves on a massive scale, and corrupting or killing anyone who found out about it. Fast forward to today, and the Jeffrey Epstein case proves that the reality of the cynical sexual use of naive, trusting young White girls — many of them little more than children — by Jewish money-men and the politicians they corrupt goes far, far beyond anything shown us . . . → Read More: Jeffrey Epstein: The Uncovering]]> dershowitz_roberts_epsteinAmerican Dissident Voices broadcast of January 17, 2015

Listen to the broadcast

by Kevin Alfred Strom

BACK IN 1999, the maverick Jewish director Stanley Kubrick — who once famously said that “Adolf Hitler got almost everything right” — produced his last film, Eyes Wide Shut, a chilling look into a secret society of elitists and wealthy men, many of them obvious Jews, using young White women as sex slaves on a massive scale, and corrupting or killing anyone who found out about it. Fast forward to today, and the Jeffrey Epstein case proves that the reality of the cynical sexual use of naive, trusting young White girls — many of them little more than children — by Jewish money-men and the politicians they corrupt goes far, far beyond anything shown us in Kubrick’s film. (ILLUSTRATION: Two Jews, financier Jeffrey Epstein [right] and high-profile lawyer and Zionist Alan Deshowitz flanking the then-17-year-old girl who says she was one of many sex slaves employed by them, some as young as 12)

A recent court filing tells us that Epstein bought, trafficked, and traded sexual favors from at least dozens of bought-and-paid-for young females, all of them White girls as far as is known, and some of them as young as 12, and passed them around to his wealthy Jewish friends, like uber-Zionist lawyer Alan Dershowitz and others. He also reportedly gave access to these sex slaves to corrupt White politicians, including former President Bill Clinton, Senator George Mitchell, and Britain’s Prince Andrew. Need I add that the mansion where these trysts took place is well-equipped with video cameras in every room?

Jeffrey Epstein is a 61-year-old Jewish financier. Though he claims to come from a middle-class family, by his twenties he was a partner in the Wall Street firm Bear Stearns, advising the wealthy on “tax strategies.” A few years later he had his own company and a reputed net worth of over $2 billion, and bragged that he only took on billionaires for clients. Other traders remarked how curious it was that Epstein was almost invisible on the Street and that his actual trading activities were unknown and unwitnessed. His only known client was the owner of the The Limited and Victoria’s Secret and big GOP/Mitt Romney donor, Leslie Wexner — also a Jew. All his other clients were, according to Epstein himself, “secret.”

Epstein lives in a nine-story, 51,000-square-foot former private school, what Vanity Fair calls “New York’s largest private residence” — and, if you’ve been to New York City, you know that’s really saying something. And that’s not all. He also lives part time in what is said to be the largest private dwelling in New Mexico — an $18 million, 7,500-acre ranch. He also spends time at his $6.8 million house in Palm Beach, Florida — where he periodically, and wisely as we shall see, makes $100,000 donations to the police department. And he has a fleet of aircraft, including a Gulfstream IV, a helicopter, and even his very own Boeing 727. He also owns his own private 70-acre island: Little St. James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where he and his powerful friends like to have their private “fun.”

Epstein was amazingly open about what he was doing. According to witnesses, his mansions were decorated with nude photographs he’d taken of his young victims, and such photos were also routinely seen scattered across the desks in his offices. Servants testified how they were required to set up multiple “massage tables” daily, complete with “sex toys” and lubricants — for the sexual “massages” that Epstein demanded from the teen girls procured for him. Even Donald Trump — one of Jeffrey’s non-Jewish friends — joked about Epstein’s predilections and how much “fun” it was to visit him.

In 2005 and 2006, the Palm Beach police department received a complaint from the parents of a 14-year-old girl — who had been repeatedly absent from home on the pretext that she was “shopping” — that Jeffrey Epstein had been employing her, and many other underage girls, for sexual purposes.

Investigators eventually elicited testimony from literally dozens of young girls that Epstein was requiring them to provide not only so-called “massages” but actual sexual intercourse. “The more you do, the more you get paid,” stated one of Epstein’s procurers, according to the Probable Cause Warrant filed against him in 2006. Epstein usually employed female procurers, who would meet the victims at school or sports events or other venues, befriend them, and lure them to one of Epstein’s estates with promises of money, learning the “legitimate massage” trade, and enjoying the “jet set” lifestyle. Once they were in the presence of Epstein, they were “sternly told” to remove their clothes and the “massages” immediately became sexual and escalated from there, according to witnesses. One procurer brought a 23-year-old to Epstein, but he rejected her “services,” stating that she was “too old.” Most of the girls were stated to be between 13 and 16, with a few as old as 18. For his birthday one year, Epstein was provided with three 12-year-old French girls, flown across the Atlantic just for the occasion. Witnesses stated that another Jew, Epstein’s former girlfriend and daughter of UK Jewish media mogul Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell, was Jeffrey’s chief procurer and constant companion. According to testimony, Maxwell even stripped and instructed the watching teens on how to properly perform sex acts on Epstein.

The honest police officers in Palm Beach who investigated this case were aghast at the result of their months-long investigation. The case against Epstein was absolutely air-tight: Witnesses abounded — young witnesses with no financial motivation whatsoever — to charge Jeffrey Epstein with hundreds of counts of child rape, child molestation, unlawful sexual intercourse, corruption of minors, and much, much more. The potential sentences for the crimes involved would have staggering, involving centuries upon centuries. But the state of Florida, higher-ups among law enforcement (remember those $100,000 donations?) including especially State’s Attorney Barry Krischer, and the US Justice Department stepped in and sabotaged the case against Epstein. Why?

Former special prosecutor Ken Starr, a White man married to a Jew and one of Epstein’s private attorneys, is one reason. Ultrazionist lawyer and author Alan Dershowitz is another. Both were part of Epstein’s huge legal “dream team,” who descended on Palm Beach like the Wicked Witch’s monkeys descended on Oz. According to published records, this “team” hired private investigators to look into the personal lives of detectives and prosecutors and other local officials, and began “jerking them around” and threatening them with unpleasant consequences if they continued to pursue charges against Epstein. Dershowitz — one of Israel’s biggest defenders in the media — as it happens is one of Epstein’s closest friends, and according to new testimony was present during sex orgies on Epstein’s private island and jets. At least one White teen girl, Virginia Roberts, was forced by Epstein to have sex with the troll-like, reptilian-looking Dershowitz on numerous occasions. Dershowitz was no doubt highly motivated to stop this case in its tracks.

In 2006, the same US Justice Department that falsely prosecuted David Duke, Chester Doles, Matt Hale, myself and many other White advocates at around the same time, also stepped in on the Jeffrey Epstein case. But they did not step in to prosecute this Jewish abuser and raper of teenage White girls. They stepped in to stop his prosecution. Secret proceedings — I thought secret legal proceedings were supposed to be against the law in the United States — took place which are still under seal. The end result was called, believe it or not, a “Non-Prosecution Agreement” under which Epstein’s associates, procurers, and powerful Wall Street, Buckingham Palace, and Washington DC friends were not to be charged at all, and all charges against Epstein would be dropped, except one local charge of soliciting one minor for prostitution. Under the agreement, Epstein would be sentenced to 18 months and would serve 13 — but not in an ordinary hellhole jail or prison, but a special VIP suite set up for him and at which many of his procurers and young female associates visited him daily. And he would be required to be in his so-called “jail cell” essentially only while he was sleeping — from 10PM to 6AM. At all other times, he was perfectly free to live at his estate as he always had, and his whereabouts and activities were not monitored.

When Epstein’s papers, trash, journals, and other records were investigated it was discovered that he had numerous guests and contacts among the rich and powerful. He had no fewer than 21 different contact numbers for Bill Clinton, who a witness saw offered the “services” of two twin teen brunettes (who he reportedly turned down) at one of the many romps at Epstein’s estates that Clinton attended. Epstein had some 16 different ways to contact Britain’s Prince Andrew, who remained a loyal Epstein associate even after his conviction, and who, according to affidavits filed recently, was repeatedly “given” the forced sexual services of a 17-year-old White girl — the same one that Epstein forced to have sex with fellow Jew Dershowitz. Britain’s very powerful and very Jewish “Lord” Mandelson had no fewer than ten entries in Epstein’s contact book. Many other luminaries of the Anglo-American establishment were there too, along with Israeli leader Ehud Barak.

One investigator was told by independent writer Robert Morrow that considering Bill Clinton’s “deep history as a rapist and serial sexual predator the odds of Bill not being pandered underage girls by Epstein would be like one in one million. And the counter-reply …was that it was more like one in one billion that Clinton was not being pandered underage girls.” Clinton took 17 trips with Epstein, ten of them to what journalists are now calling Pedophile Island.

Another close Epstein associate is another probable Jew, Jean Luc Brunel — who has been accused of drugging and sexually abusing White teenage girls used by his modeling agency. Epstein paid Brunel $1 million for his modeling agency which, according to published reports, “was really designed to funnel in underage girls for sex by Epstein.” In Michael Gross’ 1995 book Model  we read “Jean-Luc is considered a danger… Owning Karins was a dream for a playboy. His problem is that he knows exactly what girls in trouble are looking for. He’s always been on the edge of the system. …Jean-Luc likes drugs and silent rape. It excites him.” Former sex slave Virginia Roberts states that, just as with Dershowitz, she was “forced to have sex with Brunel and was forced to watch Brunel having sexual acts with dozens of underage girls.”

One mother relates that Epstein and his procurers were especially on the lookout for vulnerable teen girls who could be easily manipulated. The girl, a teenage actress aged 13, who had recently lost her father, received notes asking her to “meet with” Epstein.

And it’s all a very Jewish thing, and it’s not just me and other critics of the Jewish establishment who are saying that. Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, a major pro-Israel pundit in the controlled media, has rallied, as he puts it, “all Jews” to defend Epstein associate Alan Dershowitz, citing ethnic loyalty and loyalty to Israel as the main reason. Boteach wrote that Dershowitz is “a man of sterling character who has been a champion of the Jewish people and Israel his entire life… We are all mindful of women who are victims of sexual crimes and they must, of course, be protected. But the reputations of individuals who have devoted their lives to the greater good deserve consideration as well.”

Dershowitz himself, always hyper-aggressive, has really popped a blood vessel now that his friend Epstein is back in the news. Enraged by the fact that the “Non-Prosecution Agreement” he negotiated has been essentially nullified by a lawsuit filed by some of Epstein’s former sex slaves — one of the whom, Virginia Roberts, is the one who says she was forced to have sex with Dershowitz when she was 17 — Dershowitz appeared on CNN in an obviously agitated mood, calling the woman a “serial liar” and “serial prostitute,” threatening to have her lawyers disbarred, and even raving about the teenager “meeting the queen,” a claim she never made. The visibly shaken Dershowitz even made a possibly revealing Freudian slip about halfway through the interview, saying his own affidavit would “categorically deny the truth.” Watch it and see for yourself.

One of Epstein’s sex slaves reportedly asked Epstein at one of his “parties” why Bill Clinton was there, and was told “He owes me some favors.” This is a key insight. Just as an uncensored look at Jewish Hollywood reveals the sexual abuse of Whites — male and female — by Jews, as I discussed in my program “The Evil Fun House,” so also the Epstein case reveals how the Jewish-dominated West really operates at the highest level. Undreamed of riches, stolen from hard-working Americans by corrupt politicians, Jewish bankers, and Jewish Wall Street tricksters, is used to buy the actual sexual slavery of young White women and girls, whose “favors” are then essentially sold for real political favors and special treatment by powerful Jews. When the favor-trading negotiations don’t go the way the Jews want, there’s always the video recordings of the politician’s or judges’ last few visits to the east bedroom to hold over his head. This is way American “democracy” really works. This is the real world. And these are just a tiny few of the things that Jeffrey Epstein has done — the few he’s actually been caught doing. And Jeffrey Epstein is just a tiny part of the very sick, very corrupt, Jewish-led System that currently rules the Western world. Uncovering Jeffrey Epstein is like uncovering one termite tunnel in one floorboard of a whole rotted city filled with termites and about to collapse in on itself. Let’s never forget that. Let’s not return to our lives as usual. Let’s never rest until Jeffrey Epstein and his cronies and friends and fellow tribesmen are removed from power over us — forever.

* * *

You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance, founded by William Luther Pierce in 1970. This program is published every week at whitebiocentrism.com and nationalvanguard.org. You can join and support us by visiting natall.com — or write to National Alliance, Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. We welcome your support, your inquiries, and your help in spreading our message of hope to our people. Once again, that address is Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on thinking free.

Listen to the broadcast

 

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/jeffrey-epstein-the-uncovering/feed/ 7
The Buying of Mr. Churchill http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/the-buying-of-mr-churchill/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/the-buying-of-mr-churchill/#comments Thu, 15 Jan 2015 00:22:45 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2038 CHURCHILL liked to think of himself as a great warlord, but he came across at the personal level as a petty gangster: theatrical, irresponsible, and immensely vain.by Dr. William Pierce

THE MAN MOST directly responsible for the demise of the British Empire and its replacement as a world power by the Soviet Empire is Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874-1965). The policies which he advocated as a member of the British government in the period just before World War II and the policies which he followed as prime minister during that war were diametrically opposed to the interests of the British people and led ultimately to the sad plight in which Britain finds herself today. Churchill acted as he did, because he consciously and deliberately served alien interests from 1938, at the latest, until the . . . → Read More: The Buying of Mr. Churchill]]> CHURCHILL liked to think of himself as a great warlord, but he came across at the personal level as a petty gangster: theatrical, irresponsible, and immensely vain.by Dr. William Pierce

THE MAN MOST directly responsible for the demise of the British Empire and its replacement as a world power by the Soviet Empire is Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874-1965). The policies which he advocated as a member of the British government in the period just before World War II and the policies which he followed as prime minister during that war were diametrically opposed to the interests of the British people and led ultimately to the sad plight in which Britain finds herself today. Churchill acted as he did, because he consciously and deliberately served alien interests from 1938, at the latest, until the end of the war.

Winston Churchill was the descendant of a noble family, the son of Lord Randolph Churchill, who was the third son of the seventh duke of Marlborough. As a young man Winston was a dilettante who early developed a lifelong taste for expensive clothes, imported cigars, old brandy, and the other amenities of “the good life. (ILLUSTRATION: Churchill liked to think of himself as a great warlord, but he came across at the personal level as a petty gangster: theatrical, irresponsible, and immensely vain.)

Although he enjoyed a brief and desultory stint as a newspaper correspondent in his early twenties, he soon decided that he could more readily support the style of life to which he wished to become accustomed by claiming a place for himself at the public trough. At the age of 26 he entered Parliament.

As a politician young Churchill continued his dilettante ways, serving in a number of minor posts and switching from one party to another whenever he thought such a move would further his career. Although he displayed only minimal qualities of statesmanship, his family connections and his sharp eye for the main chance led to his steady advancement, and in 1908 he was promoted to the cabinet. When World War I broke out Churchill became first lord of the admiralty, with the job of supervising the British Navy.

In the latter post Churchill’s lack of a mature sense of responsibility and his ineptness as a military strategist led to disaster. He directed the utterly bungled Gallipoli campaign against the Turks in 1915, which led to a total defeat for the British, with more than 100,000 casualties.

Forced to resign his admiralty post in disgrace, Churchill decided to concentrate his energies on developing his one talent: a gift for theatrical oratory. Spending as much as six weeks preparing for a single speech, he would carefully rehearse every intonation and dramatic pause, carefully practice every gesture and facial expression before a mirror. He became a demagogue of rare ability.

Neither his disgrace as a military bungler nor his subsequent success as a political spellbinder abated his taste for expensive living, however, and in the period between the first and second world wars Churchill habitually lived far beyond his means. Finally in 1938, when he was 64 years old, his creditors prepared to foreclose on him, and he was faced with the prospect of a forced sale of his luxurious country estate.

Henry Strakosch

Henry Strakosch

At this hour of crisis a dark and mysterious figure entered Churchill’s life: he was Henry Strakosch, a multimillionaire Jew who had acquired a fortune speculating in South African mining ventures after his family had migrated to that country from eastern Austria. Strakosch stepped forward, advanced the aging demagogue a “loan” of 150,000 pounds just in time to save his estate from the auctioneer, and then quietly slipped into the background again. In the years that followed, Strakosch served as Churchill’s adviser and confidant but miraculously managed to avoid the spotlight of publicity which thenceforth illuminated Churchill’s again-rising political career.

Churchill immediately became the sharpest Parliamentary critic of his own party’s (at that time he had once again switched from the Liberals back to the ruling Conservatives) policy of detente with National Socialist Germany. He took up the Jewish cry, “Delenda est Germania – Germany must be destroyed,” and urged his government, in a series of jingoistic and bloodthirsty speeches, to join the Jewish “holy war” against Hitler. This was the same Churchill who, in September 1937, had said of Hitler: “If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”

CHURCHILL'S relationship with the Jews changed markedly during his political career. In the 1920's and the early 1930's he was not afraid to criticize Jews occasionally - or to praise Hitler - but after receiving 150,000 pounds from Henry Strakosch In 1938 he thenceforth uttered only the most extravagant praise for Jews and the most vitriolic condemnations of Hitler and Germany. Even as early as 1920, however, Churchill was careful to salt his criticisms of "bad Jews" and their destructive activities with obsequious references to "good Jews" and their supposed benevolence. This article [see the Appendix for its full text. -- Ed.] in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of February 8, 1920, roused the Jews to a fury against Churchill, because it exposed communism as a Jewish plot for world domination. Churchill's praise of Zionism and his erroneous attribution of Christian morals and philosophy to Jews did little to salve their outrage. It is difficult to decide whether the rose-colored view of Zionism expressed here is due to naivete or hypocrisy. Perhaps he genuinely believed that Zionism was a movement "in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire," rather than an alternative Jewish plot for world domination fully as evil and dangerous as communism; perhaps not. In any event, it is clear that, despite the fulsome Jew-fawning of the first few paragraphs of his article, Churchill was issuing a thinly veiled warning to the Jews in Britain: "Behave, or else; repudiate the communist activities and doctrines of your fellow Jews and help us keep the communist menace from taking over Britain, or we'll all know whom to blame." After 1938 Churchill never came close to making as frank a public statement on the Jewish problem as this; the struggle for his own soul had been decided, and the Jews were the victors. And having sold out to the Jews, Churchill then had no qualms about dealing with communists as well; he sat down with Joseph Stalin and planned the post-WW II dismemberment of the British Empire. There is one minor error in the article above: Lenin was actually at least one-quarter Jewish; and one major piece of hypocrisy: Churchill knew well that the "national" Jews he praised for their contribution to the British war effort actually came over to the British side only after helping their Zionist brethren extort from the British government a promise of aid in securing Palestine as a future Jewish state.

CHURCHILL’S relationship with the Jews changed markedly during his political career. In the 1920’s and the early 1930’s he was not afraid to criticize Jews occasionally – or to praise Hitler – but after receiving 150,000 pounds from Henry Strakosch In 1938 he thenceforth uttered only the most extravagant praise for Jews and the most vitriolic condemnations of Hitler and Germany. Even as early as 1920, however, Churchill was careful to salt his criticisms of “bad Jews” and their destructive activities with obsequious references to “good Jews” and their supposed benevolence. This article [see the Appendix for its full text. — Ed.] in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of February 8, 1920, roused the Jews to a fury against Churchill, because it exposed communism as a Jewish plot for world domination. Churchill’s praise of Zionism and his erroneous attribution of Christian morals and philosophy to Jews did little to salve their outrage. It is difficult to decide whether the rose-colored view of Zionism expressed here is due to naivete or hypocrisy. Perhaps he genuinely believed that Zionism was a movement “in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire,” rather than an alternative Jewish plot for world domination fully as evil and dangerous as communism; perhaps not. In any event, it is clear that, despite the fulsome Jew-fawning of the first few paragraphs of his article, Churchill was issuing a thinly veiled warning to the Jews in Britain: “Behave, or else; repudiate the communist activities and doctrines of your fellow Jews and help us keep the communist menace from taking over Britain, or we’ll all know whom to blame.” After 1938 Churchill never came close to making as frank a public statement on the Jewish problem as this; the struggle for his own soul had been decided, and the Jews were the victors. And having sold out to the Jews, Churchill then had no qualms about dealing with communists as well; he sat down with Joseph Stalin and planned the post-WW II dismemberment of the British Empire. There is one minor error in the article above: Lenin was actually at least one-quarter Jewish; and one major piece of hypocrisy: Churchill knew well that the “national” Jews he praised for their contribution to the British war effort actually came over to the British side only after helping their Zionist brethren extort from the British government a promise of aid in securing Palestine as a future Jewish state.

And as soon as Churchill changed his tune toward Hitler, the dark forces behind the scenes which had ignored him for 23 years began pulling the right strings for him again. In September 1939, immediately upon Britain’s declaration of war against Germany — largely as a consequence of Churchill’s insistent, demagogic oratory — he was again made first lord of the admiralty, the very post from which he had been forced in disgrace 24 years earlier! This time, however, Churchill’s reckless disregard for British lives and British welfare was to cost far more than the 100,000 casualties of his first fling at grand strategy.

In May 1940 the strings were pulled once again, and Churchill became prime minister. Britain and her empire were now his to expend as profligately as he wished in the service of his new masters. And expend them he did. His sole aim was the destruction of Germany, regardless of the cost to Britain. This aim, dictated by the Jews he served, was poorly concealed behind a mask of false idealism. Churchill’s ostensible motive in urging a declaration of war against Germany in September 1939 had been the protection of Poland from German aggression, and his Parliamentary rhetoric on behalf of the poor Poles was loud and eloquent. When the Soviet Union invaded eastern Poland later that same month, however, Churchill angrily denounced those critics who suggested that his own arguments for a declaration of war against Germany applied equally well now to a British declaration of war against the Soviets. Obviously, Churchill had no intention of using the sauce for the goose as sauce for the gander.

Churchill repeatedly rejected peace offers from Germany in 1940 and 1941, even siding with the Labor members of the cabinet against his own party when the other Conservatives in the cabinet wanted to end the war. When Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess, flew to England on a solo peace mission in May 1941, Churchill had him immediately arrested and held incommunicado. (Hess remains in solitary confinement to this day.) [ED. NOTE: Hess has since died, still imprisoned at the age of 93, in August of 1987.]

WINNIE AND JOE, bosom pals. Churchill posed for this arm-in-arm picture with Stalin in the Kremlin In August 1942. He apparently swallowed his former hatred of the Bolsheviks while he was in the service of the Jews — unless that hatred was as phony as everything else in his life.

Churchill was a participant in the wartime strategy conferences with Roosevelt and Stalin at which a new division of the world’s territory and resources was mapped out. In this division of the spoils of war Britain was sadly shortchanged, but Churchill was unperturbed. With a big cigar clenched in his teeth and suffused with the warm glow of expensive brandy, he merely flashed his two finger “victory” sign, and his media cheering section waxed ecstatic about his “statesmanship.” Whatever he did was now beyond criticism — and this included his utterly cynical acquiescence in the handing over of Poland to Stalin after the war, thus revealing once again the hypocrisy of his avowed war aim in 1939: to save Polish freedom.

One of Churchill’s last acts of “statesmanship” at the behest of the Jews was his insistence on the massive Anglo-American terror raid on Dresden in February 1945, a hate-inspired act of Jewish vengeance against the German people which cost the lives of approximately 200,000 men, women, and children and served no military purpose whatever.

In the postwar years the sun set on one portion after another of the British Empire, and the entire process of disintegration was set in motion by Churchill in his reckless disregard of British interests during the seven-year period, 1938-1945, when he served an alien master. Yet, the establishment history texts continue to heap lavish praise on Churchill, extolling his “greatness.” If there is anything truly remarkable that Winston Churchill should be remembered for, it is his success in raising the price of treason from 30 pieces of silver to 150,000 pounds sterling.

* * *

From Attack! Issue No. 34, 1977, transcribed by Michael Olanich, from The Best of Attack! And National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom.

_______

APPENDIX

Zionism versus Bolshevism:
A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People

by Winston S. Churchill

SOME PEOPLE LIKE JEWS and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.

Disraeli, the Jew Prime Minister of England, and Leader of the Conservative Party, who was always true to his race and proud of his origin, said on a well-known occasion: “The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews.” Certainly when we look at the miserable state of Russia, where of all countries in the world the Jews were the most cruelly treated, and contrast it with the fortunes of our own country, which seems to have been so providentially preserved amid the awful perils of these times, we must admit that nothing that has since happened in the history of the world has falsified the truth of Disraeli’s confident assertion.

Good and Bad Jews

The conflict between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in the breast of man nowhere reaches such an intensity as in the Jewish race. The dual nature of mankind is nowhere more strongly or more terribly exemplified. We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together. On that system and by that faith there has been built out of the wreck of the Roman Empire the whole of our existing civilization.

And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.

‘National’ Jews

There can be no greater mistake than to attribute to each individual a recognizable share in the qualities which make up the national character. There are all sorts of men — good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent — in every country, and in every race. Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct. In a people of peculiar genius like the Jews, contrasts are more vivid, the extremes are more widely separated, the resulting consequences are more decisive.

At the present fateful period there are three main lines of political conception among the Jews. Two of which are helpful and hopeful in a very high degree to humanity, and the third absolutely destructive.

First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them. Such a Jew living in England would say, “I am an English man practising the Jewish faith.” This is a worthy conception, and useful in the highest degree. We in Great Britain well know that during the great struggle the influence of what may be called the “National Jews” in many lands was cast preponderatingly on the side of the Allies; and in our own Army Jewish soldiers have played a most distinguished part, some rising to the command of armies, others winning the Victoria Cross for valour.

The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honorable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organizations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholder of friendship with France and Great Britain.

International Jews

Leon Trotsky

Leon Trotsky

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky  in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Rosa Luxembourg in Germany, and Emma Goldman in the United States, this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Terrorist Jews

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

‘Protector of the Jews’

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin’s authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offenses against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole, vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalized their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms.

The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies, which are now being perpetrated. This is an injustice on millions of helpless people, most of whom are themselves sufferers from the revolutionary regime. It becomes, therefore, specially important to foster and develop any strongly-marked Jewish movement which leads directly away from these fatal associations. And it is here that Zionism has such a deep significance for the whole world at the present time.

A Home for the Jews

Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism, it presents to the Jew a national idea of a commanding character. It has fallen to the British Government, as the result of the conquest of Palestine, to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home and centre of national life. The statesmanship and historic sense of Mr. Balfour were prompt to seize this opportunity. Declarations have now been made which have irrevocably decided the policy of Great Britain. The fiery energies of Dr. Weissmann, the leader, for practical purposes, of the Zionist project, backed by many of the most prominent British Jews, and supported by the full authority of Lord Allenby, are all directed to achieving the success of this inspiring movement.

Of course, Palestine is far too small to accommodate more than a fraction of the Jewish race, nor do the majority of national Jews wish to go there. But if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.

Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.

Duty of Loyal Jews

It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion, as many of them in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honor of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.

But a negative resistance to Bolshevism in any field is not enough. Positive and practicable alternatives are needed in the moral as well as in the social sphere; and in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become not only a refuge to the oppressed from the unhappy lands of Central Europe, but which will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish glory, a task is presented on which many blessings rest.

* * *

From the February 8th, 1920, edition of the Illustrated Sunday Herald

Winston Churchill’s authorship of this article has been authenticated by one of the world’s leading Churchill bibliographers, Richard Heinzkill, of the University of Oregon, Eugene.

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/the-buying-of-mr-churchill/feed/ 1
The Inquiring Mind of Aldous Huxley http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/the-inquiring-mind-of-aldous-huxley/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/the-inquiring-mind-of-aldous-huxley/#comments Wed, 14 Jan 2015 04:21:57 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2003 The Human Situation CoverThe Human Situation: Lectures at Santa Barbara, 1959, by Aldous Huxley, edited by Piero Ferrucci (Flamingo, paperback).

reviewed by Nick Camerota

BLOOD WILL TELL, says the old folk wisdom. Back in 1902, even the socialist H.G. Wells believed it. (In Anticipations, he held that the less advanced races, those “swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people,” who believe the world to be a charity institution, “will have to go.”)

But this idea seems to have been washed away by the rising tide of color and by the present, unreasoning insistence that all men are somehow “equal.” However, a brief look at the Huxley family shows us there is more truth than poetry in the old saying.

Aldous Huxley’s great uncle was Matthew Arnold. Huxley’s . . . → Read More: The Inquiring Mind of Aldous Huxley]]> The Human Situation CoverThe Human Situation: Lectures at Santa Barbara, 1959, by Aldous Huxley, edited by Piero Ferrucci (Flamingo, paperback).

reviewed by Nick Camerota

BLOOD WILL TELL, says the old folk wisdom. Back in 1902, even the socialist H.G. Wells believed it. (In Anticipations, he held that the less advanced races, those “swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people,” who believe the world to be a charity institution, “will have to go.”)

But this idea seems to have been washed away by the rising tide of color and by the present, unreasoning insistence that all men are somehow “equal.” However, a brief look at the Huxley family shows us there is more truth than poetry in the old saying.

Aldous Huxley’s great uncle was Matthew Arnold. Huxley’s grandfather, Thomas H., was a friend and champion of Charles Darwin. Huxley’s father, Leonard, was a noted writer and editor. And Aldous’ brother, Julian, the distinguished biologist, is also far from retarded.

Wells, a student of T.H. Huxley, saw a strong physical resemblance between Aldous and his grandfather. The similarities seem to extend to qualities of intellect and character, since neither of them was afraid to express unpopular ideas.

Aldous Huxley began his lecture series at Santa Barbara nearly two decades ago with a reference to his grandfather’s preoccupation “with the problem of excessive specialization” and the widening gulf between the natural sciences and the humanities. In The Human Situation, published posthumously late last year, Aldous sets out to build bridges which connect art and science.

Moreover, he attempts to address a variety of fundamental human problems. He asks: “Who are we? What is the nature of human nature? How should we be related to the planet on which we live? How are we to live together satisfactorily? How do we develop our individual potentialities? What is the relationship between nature and nurture?” Huxley endeavors to answer these questions by drawing on insights provided by various disciplines.

Unfortunately, The Human Situation hasn’t gotten much attention from reviewers, and those who have written it up have not been terribly enthusiastic. I can only assume that some of Huxley’s ideas make them uncomfortable.

Aldous Huxley

Aldous Huxley

Huxley is an extraordinarily gifted essayist, and one can turn to almost any page in this book and find some interesting thought. His writing possesses this magnetic quality simply because Huxley is not afraid of ideas. It is noteworthy that in more recent years a number of his most vocal critics have been liberals.

Huxley, who defies standard political classification, was no stranger to controversy. Although he described his politics as “Fabian and mildly Labourite,” Huxley was strongly attracted to the elitist philosophical speculations of Vilfredo Pareto. Huxley felt that “political convictions are generally the fruit of chance.” In Jesting Pilate he wrote: “If I had been brought up a little differently, I might, I suppose, have been a Fascist and an apostle of the most full-blooded imperialism.”

Although he opposed totalitarianism, Huxley, like E.M. Forster, could summon only one or two half-hearted cheers for democracy. In the days of Shelley, Huxley wrote, democracy was a “young and attractive” utopianism and “not the bedraggled and rather whorish old slut she is now. . . .” In an essay entitled “Political Democracy,” which appeared in his Proper Studies (1927), Huxley ridiculed democracy, calling it a fraud, and suggested that the masses regularly elect fools or charlatans.

While Huxley gives vent to very little of his anti-democratic thought in The Human Situation, he does push his lifelong pacifism and internationalism. In his sixth lecture, “War and Nationalism,” Huxley claims that war is a “culturally conditioned state of affairs based upon the natural condition of conflict.” He cites German ethologist Konrad Lorenz in an attempt to show that “fight to the finish” seldom occurs in nature. War, according to Huxley, is unnatural, because it extends conflict “to the limit of destruction and is not instinctive.”

Furthermore, war is conditioned by the symbols of modern nationalism. We may part company with Huxley here, but he is correct in pointing to the arbitrary nature of most modern nationalisms, which are defined in terms of language, geography, or other non-racial criteria.

Perhaps two of the best reasons for reading The Human Situation (now that I’ve just given you one of the worst reasons) are his fifth and tenth lectures, respectively titled “How Original Is Original Sin?” and “The Ego,” in which Huxley discusses the nature-nurture debate and William Sheldon’s somatotype theory.

Huxley takes Lamarck, Lysenko, and other assorted behaviorists to task for neglecting nature’s role, in the formation of the individual. Huxley’s position is that neither nature nor nurture exist independently. Although he does tilt noticeably in the direction of nature as the dominant factor, he adds (in a later lecture) that a healthy environment is needed to realize the best of our “inborn capacities.” To Huxley the good practitioner of eugenics is also a social reformer.

Things haven’t changed all that much since Huxley assessed the state of this controversy, and his remark on the prejudice attending it still holds: “The tendency at the present time to underplay the importance of genetic factors generally is related to certain political and philosophical doctrines. Orthodox Marxism, for example, is based upon the idea of environmental determinism and does not like the idea of congenital differences. In this country, possibly because of a wrongly interpreted view of democracy, it is felt that too much stress upon the congenital and unchangeable differences between people is somehow undemocratic — and also very depressing.”

If modern psychology refuses to concede anything to nature, it is because it fails to conduct a proper study of the body. Huxley sees man as a composite of three elements: body, ego, and psyche. “For practical purposes,” he suggests, “we have to think in terms of something like a neutral monism, with mind and body being aspects of the same substance.” It is not surprising that he should be very much taken with the theories of William Sheldon.

Huxley devotes a considerable amount of space to Sheldon. It is significant that the only major criticism directed against Huxley’s lectures while he was at Santa Barbara concerned the importance he attached to Sheldon. In the final moments of his last presentation, Huxley again said of Sheldon, “I happen to think he is right.”

Huxley observed a similarity between the three main divisions of men set forth in the Aryan classic, the Bhagavad-Gita (he wrote the introduction to the Mentor edition), and Sheldon’s typology. If Sheldon’s blubbery endomorphs had been ancient Aryans, they would have given themselves over to an emotional devotion to the gods, while the muscular mesomorphs would have followed the path of duty and action, and the spare and introverted ectomorphs would have led lives of solitary contemplation.

Many of Huxley’s novels reveal Sheldon’s influence: most of Huxley’s characters are fashioned in accordance with Sheldon’s typology. For instance, Everard Webley, the leader of a fascist-style movement in Point Counter Point, has a driving personality very much in keeping with his mesomorphic body type. (Webley is based upon Sir Oswald Mosley, and it is of some interest that he should be treated in a fairly sympathetic fashion, even though the author eventually kills him off.) Another, and one of the most believable of Huxley’s early characters, Mark Rampion (who is said to be based upon D.H. Lawrence), provides a further clue to Huxley’s view of man’s nature when he asserts, “To be a perfect animal and a perfect human — that was the ideal.”

Like somatotypes, the population problem and ecological concerns were high on Huxley’s list of pet topics. He covers these and related matters in his first few lectures. Huxley was a persistent questioner of democracy’s ability to cope effectively with the problem of overpopulation. He believed that unchecked population growth leads to a strain on available natural resources which, in turn, causes a greater centralization of government.

Another side effect is an increased temptation to use exploitative and, ultimately, destructive economic and agricultural methods to provide more goods and services. Balance in nature, as well as human social equilibrium, is upset by unregulated capitalism. “The Germans,” he notes, “have a good term for this kind of exploitative economy; they call it Raubwirtschaft (robber economy).”

Huxley also realized that the population problem was, in great measure, a problem of human quality. He was well aware of dysgenic breeding trends, but his consideration of this matter is far more detailed in his earlier Brave New World Revisited than in The Human Situation. Huxley quotes Sheldon’s bleak prognosis (“our best stock tends to be outbred by stock that is inferior to it in every respect”) but, unlike Wells, he does not say the inferior elements “will have to go.”

He sees in eugenics some hope for the world’s future, but, once again, he mistakenly assaults nationalism. While disagreeing with Huxley’s internationalist stance, nationalists should be able to see the advantages of a vigorously applied eugenics program. Consider the following:

“Sooner or later eugenics will be practiced, although it is certainly going to take a tremendous revolution in our present ethical ideas on this subject. It may also be added that the first nation that does practice such eugenic methods as Professor [Hermann J.] Muller advocates will in a few decades be enormously superior to all its rivals . . .”

Near the end of The Human Situation, Huxley decries racial “prejudice.” It should be noted that many who recognize some form of racial feeling in others can’t always see it in themselves. Like G.B. Shaw, Huxley is a good case in point. His seldom-anthologized essays, such as Jesting Pilate, Along the Road, and Do What You Will, contain a number of comments which reveal his feelings toward Jews.

For example, in Do What You Will he wrote of the Jews: “Their mission, in a word, was to infect the rest of humanity with a belief [in materialism] which . . . prevented them from having any art, any political life, any breadth of vision, any progress. We may be pardoned for wishing that the Jews had remained not forty, but four thousand years in their repulsive wilderness.”

In 1943 he told his brother Julian that the Jews are a “monied, influential, and pushing minority” who are themselves responsible for ill-feeling and anti-Semitism (The Letters of Aldous Huxley). In Antic Hay one of Huxley’s characters complains of “hideous red cities pullulating with Jews, sir. Pullulating with prosperous Jews. Am I right in being indignant, sir?” Huxley apparently thought so. But by the end of the Second World War he kept whatever anti-Jewish sentiments he harbored to himself.

For all this, Huxley still remains a fascinating and much misunderstood individual. One part scientist, who urged better living through chemistry, one part mystic, he stepped on a good many toes and raised important issues. What he once wrote of his friendly enemy, D.H. Lawrence, can be applied to Huxley himself. He was not a man content to “live in a little puddle of light thrown by the gig-lamps of habit,” and his knowledge of the universe did not diminish his sense of wonder.

 * * *

From Attack! No. 61, 1978, transcribed by Anthony Collins and edited by Vanessa Neubauer, from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/the-inquiring-mind-of-aldous-huxley/feed/ 0
Whose Values Shall Rule? http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/whose-values-shall-rule/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/whose-values-shall-rule/#comments Wed, 14 Jan 2015 03:45:40 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2052 “Whose Values Shall Rule?” is a commentary by Dr. William Pierce which appeared in the National Alliance Bulletin of June, 1980.

Life rune flag

Dr. Pierce addressed a meeting of the Ridgewood Group, at the Estonian House in New York City, on May 27. He had been asked to speak especially about his book, The Turner Diaries (for which the nom de plume Andrew Macdonald was used). He spoke for about 45 minutes, first pointing out that the purpose of the book is neither to entertain nor to present a plan for a revolution. The book, he said, is intended solely to serve as a medium for certain ideas, some expressed implicitly and others explicitly. Those ideas deal with human behavior, motivation, and values. The following material has been excerpted from the latter portion . . . → Read More: Whose Values Shall Rule?]]> “Whose Values Shall Rule?” is a commentary by Dr. William Pierce which appeared in the National Alliance Bulletin of June, 1980.

Life rune flag

Dr. Pierce addressed a meeting of the Ridgewood Group, at the Estonian House in New York City, on May 27. He had been asked to speak especially about his book, The Turner Diaries (for which the nom de plume Andrew Macdonald was used). He spoke for about 45 minutes, first pointing out that the purpose of the book is neither to entertain nor to present a plan for a revolution. The book, he said, is intended solely to serve as a medium for certain ideas, some expressed implicitly and others explicitly. Those ideas deal with human behavior, motivation, and values. The following material has been excerpted from the latter portion of Dr. Pierce’s New York address:

* * *

Whose Values Shall Rule?
by Dr. William Pierce

IT IS IMPORTANT for us to understand that one person is not a Methodist and another a Catholic and a third a Marxist as the result of any rational process — at least, not in the vast majority of cases, although there are individual exceptions.

That is, one is not a Methodist because one sat down and studied the Methodist doctrine, compared it with other doctrines, and decided that Methodism was what made the most sense. One is a Methodist, generally, because one’s parents and neighbors were — that is, out of an entirely unreasoning desire to conform, to believe what one perceives that one is expected to believe. John Wesley undoubtedly was an exception to this rule, but very few other Methodists have been.

There has been strong resistance to accepting the implications of this important facet of human behavior. People seem to want to believe that we are all quite rational, when most of us aren’t. For our purposes, the implication of the fact that most people are governed far more by herd instinct than by reason is this: Insofar as the general public is concerned, truth cannot fight its own battles. As long as Norman Lear, the Jewish television producer, has more kilowatts for reaching the public than we do, it will be his view of history and, more important, his view of what is moral rather than ours which will be generally accepted and which will govern the political process.

This means that we can realistically expect our educational efforts to be effective with only a rather small minority of our fellow citizens. We cannot expect to make a partisan for our cause out of the average man or woman who perceives, even unconsciously, that our cause is not popular, no matter how many books or leaflets we may coax that person into reading. We win only two types of people: One is the person who is already alienated to a certain extent from Mr. Lear’s world and does not fully feel himself a part of the herd to which Mr. Lear is preaching with his cleverly designed television sermons. Unfortunately, in many cases people are alienated for reason which are entirely or partly wrong from our point of view. That is why protest movements and revolutionary movements always pick up lots of defective people. On the other hand, alienation is certain to remain a growth industry, as they say, and one can hope to see many more essentially healthy people becoming alienated from the mainstream in the years ahead.

The second type of person we are able to win with an educational effort at this time is the person who is one of those rare exceptions to the general rule, a person who is strongly motivated by ideas as well as by instinct, and who has already been groping in our direction. Our effect with such a person is primarily to help him clarify his ideas and to lead him more rapidly to their logical conclusions.

This contrast between idealistic motivation and herd instinct tell us only part of the story as to why people behave the way they do. The rest of the story takes us into the realm of values. Consider your average man or woman, your ordinary White American: what, other than herd instinct, determines his behavior — in particular, the way he votes?

Well, he generally likes to be warm, dry, and comfortable. He likes to eat. He likes sex. He likes to feel secure. He likes to be entertained. He likes to own shiny things, such as automobiles, boats, houses, new golf clubs, and jewelry. And that’s about it. If these desires of his are gratified, then he is satisfied. If he thinks a politician will satisfy him, he’ll vote for the man.

Now, if this average citizen hears that Blacks are rioting and killing Whites somewhere 1,000 miles away he will be annoyed — if Norman Lear hasn’t already affected his mind too much and he still has healthy instincts. When he hears that hundreds of thousands of non-White aliens are pouring into the country, again he’ll be annoyed. All these things are, to a greater or lesser extent, perceived as threats at the instinctual level. They trigger his normal territorial or xenophobic reflexes. But unless the threat becomes very direct and very personal — unless the riot is in his neighborhood, unless a member of his immediate family marries a non-White, or unless he receives a special tax bill in the mail to provide welfare payment for more immigrants — the annoyance remains minor. It does not override his desire to be satisfied.

When it comes time to vote, if one candidate is in favor of forced busing or more boat people and a second candidate is against these things — and if all other factors are equal — then he’ll vote for the second man. But all the other factors are never equal. And if the pro-busing man has a nice smile and a warm personality that makes the voter feel more secure, while the anti-busing man wants to raise the charge for fishing licenses, say, and the voter likes to fish, then he’ll vote for the pro-busing candidate nine times out of ten.

That is why a state like Minnesota, which has one of the racially healthiest population in the country, could keep sending a piece of filth like the late Hubert Humphrey back to the U.S. Senate term after term. Old Hubert could stand up in the Senate and support forced busing, forced housing, forced hiring, and everything else that most Minnesotans didn’t favor — except, of course, those Minnesotans already convinced by Norman Lear that they should favor those things — and then Hubert could make up for it all by going for bigger farm price supports than his opponent and by being, as they say in New York, a mensch. And the good folks of Minnesota would re-elect him.

Many people don’t like the view of human behavior I am presenting to you, because it is mechanistic; it reduces man to no more than another animal. And I’ll admit that it is an oversimplified view. But it is nevertheless a fact that man is an animal, and that fact accounts for 99 per cent of his behavior. In particular, it accounts for the way he votes. That’s why democracy is such a catastrophe.

I said the fact that man is an animal explains 99 per cent of his behavior, and anyone who wants to change the world in any way must take that fact into account. But it is the other one per cent of human motivation that I’m more interested in and that the Alliance is more interested in. It’s the other one per cent that explains why Earl Turner, the hero of The Turner Diaries, did the things he did.

Earl Turner was a man whose priorities were different from those of your average American voter. Earl Turner liked to be warm and dry and to have a full belly, just like everyone else. He enjoyed sex. And, presumably, he liked to own shiny things. But when Blacks killed Whites 1,000 miles away, it wasn’t just a minor annoyance to him. He had a larger view of the world and of his race and of his relationship to them. He could abstract what was a minor, personal threat to your average voter, and he could relate that abstraction to his view of the world.

When Earl Turner saw a racially mixed couple on the street, the sight did more than arouse a twinge of xenophobia or offend his sense of beauty. Unlike your average voter, he saw all the implications of that mixed couple. He saw mongrel children and mongrel grandchildren; he saw a race defiled. He saw a threat not just to himself, but to the whole upward course of life; a threat not just to his race, but to what his race could become.

And it was this that was important to Earl Turner: it was this that counted more than being satisfied, more than owning shiny things. And that’s why he didn’t behave like your average voter. His priorities were different.

Actually, there are two concepts here. First, Earl Turner had the capacity for abstraction, for taking an idea out of a specific set of circumstances and putting it into a more general context: for converting an idea into an ideal. That is a capacity which distinguishes our race from Blacks, in general, but it is still a capacity which relatively few Whites have to any significant degree.

And, second, there are values, the choice of which things count most. For most people the things that come first, even if they have the capacity for abstraction, are entirely personal. It is only for a minority within a minority that the long-range things are the ones that count. Only the very few can feel that it is more important that strength and beauty and wisdom prevail and become stronger and more beautiful and wiser with each succeeding generation than it is that any individual — or a million individuals — have full bellies.

In The Turner Diaries the real struggle was not so much one of a revolutionary band against the government as it was of one set of values against another set. Earl Turner and his Organization were the champions of a life-centered set of values, a set of values in which the central reality is not the individual, but all of Life: the Cosmos, in its entire temporal extension. Opposed to them were not only the values of the government and the media and the plutocrats, but also the individual-centered set of values of mass man, of the average voter. And in The Turner Diaries the life-centered values won, and those values then ruled. And the whole world was changed: its government, its racial composition, its art and industry, it life-styles, and all its priorities.

Human nature didn’t change — that is, the mentality and the values of the average White person didn’t change, because those are things which can only be changed over the course of generations, through the evolutionary process. But a different set of values, the values of an elite minority, gained precedence over the values of man. That’s what The Turner Diaries is all about.

And as I said earlier, it’s not a plan or a blueprint. The details — the bombings and assassinations, the nuclear war and its aftermath — are all fiction. But the struggle for dominance between the two sets of values portrayed in the book is not fiction. That’s real. And it is in this regard that Earl Turner’s Organization is the model for the National Alliance.

We are concerned, then, not only with education, with helping people clarify their thoughts and reach the proper conclusions, but also with embodying and institutionalizing a set of fundamental values and a view of the world. We are convinced that, unless our values prevail and rule, unless it is our world view which determines the shape of the future by setting men’s priorities and guiding them in their decisions, then there will be no future — that is, no future worth mentioning, because it will be a retrograde future, and our race will not be a part of it. And, in fact, the only valid reason why our race should survive is that it is the bearer of the values that we are determined shall prevail. For life loses its intrinsic value when its only motive is to increase its quantity, went its only goal is satiety.

The value of every form of life — of every race — of every individual — is not that it is an end in itself but that it is a means to a higher end. The value of a man’s life is not to be found in the degree to which he enjoys himself or in the amount of wealth or power he accumulates – and it especially is not to be found in the so-called good he does by making life more comfortable for others. It is to be found only in the extent to which he helps prepare the way for a higher, a more fully conscious life than his own.

Earl Turner understood that and acted accordingly and we must do the same.

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/whose-values-shall-rule/feed/ 0
The Recent Terror Attacks in Paris http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/the-recent-terror-attacks-in-paris/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/the-recent-terror-attacks-in-paris/#comments Wed, 14 Jan 2015 03:30:47 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2054 Charlie-Hebdo-2015-11by Michael Olanich

THE BIGGEST NEWS STORY last week was the massacre of 12 newspaper writers and editors in Paris, France, by at least two masked gunmen who were reportedly radical Muslim Jihadists. The attack was on the office which housed the newspaper Charlie Hebdo, a strongly left-wing publication known for its routine satirical cartoons attacking Islam, Christianity, and even Judaism (although I have yet to see an example of the latter). Apparently the Muslim attackers had had enough of the paper’s Islam-bashing and decided to slaughter the employees on Wednesday of last week. (ILLUSTRATION: Police officers, emergency vehicles, and journalists at the scene some two hours after the shooting.)

While it is hard for me to shed a tear for anyone who works in the left-wing news establishment, the question needs to be raised: . . . → Read More: The Recent Terror Attacks in Paris]]> Charlie-Hebdo-2015-11by Michael Olanich

THE BIGGEST NEWS STORY last week was the massacre of 12 newspaper writers and editors in Paris, France, by at least two masked gunmen who were reportedly radical Muslim Jihadists. The attack was on the office which housed the newspaper Charlie Hebdo, a strongly left-wing publication known for its routine satirical cartoons attacking Islam, Christianity, and even Judaism (although I have yet to see an example of the latter). Apparently the Muslim attackers had had enough of the paper’s Islam-bashing and decided to slaughter the employees on Wednesday of last week. (ILLUSTRATION: Police officers, emergency vehicles, and journalists at the scene some two hours after the shooting.)

While it is hard for me to shed a tear for anyone who works in the left-wing news establishment, the question needs to be raised: Why is a European country like France allowing so many Arab Muslims, many of whom are hostile to the West, to freely immigrate there?

According to Wikipedia’s article on the incident:

“Since the 1960s, the Muslim population of European countries such as France and Germany has been growing. By the time of the shooting, the Muslim population of France had surpassed 5 million. The Paris metropolitan area was estimated to have a minimum of 1.7 million Muslims in 2004. The Muslim presence is resented by some French people, particularly those on the far right.”

Well, 5 million is probably a conservative estimate, and the “minimum” 1.7 million figure in Paris has undoubtedly risen since 2004. (Indeed, the situation in France and Germany resembles America’s immigration disaster, and though in our case it is mainly Mestizos who continue to pour uncontrollably across our southern border, the number of Muslim immigrants is rising here as well.)

The only solution to this problem — and the one that is never considered or mentioned by the mainstream media — is expelling all non-White Muslims from France and returning them to their countries of origin in the Middle East. And we should not stop there: All European and European-derived nations –France and America and the rest — should expel all Middle Easterners, including Jews. It is Jewish elites who have worked to displace the native White populations of these nations. It is Jewish elites who have fostered the wars for Israel undertaken by the West in the Middle East, creating a huge wellspring of anti-Western feelings among Muslims, while simultaneously opening our borders to massive immigration of these same peoples in a high-risk play to make their enemies into our enemies — and use us as cannon fodder in their wars.

As long as the American and European media are dominated by Jews, this solution will never be seriously debated, despite its merits. Those who do so risk attack and ostracism from the media and System politicians in the US, and outright arrest in many countries in Europe.

Jewish lobbyists have already successfully stifled free speech in many European countries, where any negative criticism of them, their policies, their World War 2 atrocity stories, or non-White immigration in general is a criminal offense.

While I sympathize with Arabs over the continued Israeli slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza – and the total US backing of Israel’s brutal policies – I am totally opposed to open immigration which allows Muslims to bring their “jihad” to Europe and America. It is clear that Arabs and Jews will clash with each other for a long time to come, with our people caught in the middle. Until a majority of will and determination arises to reclaim our ancestral lands for ourselves alone, we can expect even more innocent White men, women, and children to die needlessly in the crossfire.

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/the-recent-terror-attacks-in-paris/feed/ 5
What Is to Be Done? http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/what-is-to-be-done/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/what-is-to-be-done/#comments Wed, 14 Jan 2015 02:56:28 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2008 William Pierce portraitby Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

IN THE FACE OF treason and criminal irresponsibility on the part of the politicians, of apathy and ignorance on the part of the White masses, and of cowardice and selfishness on the part of most intelligent Whites, what is to be done to save our race, in spite of itself?

The answer is not difficult to state, although a bit of argument is required to present a convincing case that it is the only answer.

The answer, in brief, is that an organization must be built which satisfies the following requirements:

It must be, first of all, not an ad hoc organization, but an organization based on fundamental principles, an organization with a world view, essentially religious in nature, shared by every member of the organization.

It must be, in structure, . . . → Read More: What Is to Be Done?]]> William Pierce portraitby Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

IN THE FACE OF treason and criminal irresponsibility on the part of the politicians, of apathy and ignorance on the part of the White masses, and of cowardice and selfishness on the part of most intelligent Whites, what is to be done to save our race, in spite of itself?

The answer is not difficult to state, although a bit of argument is required to present a convincing case that it is the only answer.

The answer, in brief, is that an organization must be built which satisfies the following requirements:

It must be, first of all, not an ad hoc organization, but an organization based on fundamental principles, an organization with a world view, essentially religious in nature, shared by every member of the organization.

It must be, in structure, a hierarchical organization, like an army — or a religious order — with the degree of understanding, of commitment, and of discipline increasing with the level of responsibility in the organization.

It must be, in scope, an all-encompassing organization, an organization which not only generates propaganda and which recruits and trains new members, but which becomes eventually a community unto itself, self-sufficient spiritually and materially, providing all the functions and capabilities needed for carrying out its task — ultimately a separate state within the state.

And it must be an organization which, in time, incorporates within itself the best elements of our people, developing from this elite minority a majority of will and determination, so that, at an exceptional moment, sufficient historical leverage can be exerted by the organization to effect a permanent change, in the desired direction, in the course of history.

Weird Storm Tree Thing

Now we will begin looking at the way in which the organization satisfying the above requirements can be built, and we will at the same time see why the various alternative answers to our original question which have been put forward by others are incorrect answers.

The first thing to understand is that there is no shortcut or clever trick which will achieve what we want: no tax revolt, no slyly worded Constitutional amendment, no Pentagon coup d’état, no secretly racist Presidential candidate disguised as a Ronald Reagan. These shortcuts have a fatal fascination for right wingers, but none of them will work, and the reasons why they won’t are both specific and general.

Consider, for example, the scheme of some of the tax-revolt enthusiasts, who are quite numerous at the moment. The great majority of the tax rebels, of course, are not right wingers and have no goal beyond reducing their own taxes. But some see the general dissatisfaction with high taxes as an opportunity for bringing about a shutdown of some of the Federal government’s least popular programs.

They reason that if enough people can be persuaded to refuse to pay their income taxes, the government can be brought to its knees. Then the tax rebels can dictate certain reforms: no more Federally enforced school busing, no more welfare payments or subsidized housing for Blacks, no more weapons and money for the Zionists, etc.

But the System doesn’t work that way. In the first place, most of the government’s money comes from paycheck deductions and from other taxes over which the individual taxpayer has no control. Only the self-employed person even has the option of refusing to pay his income tax.

In the second place, the government will always find the money to enforce its various race-mixing programs, to buy off the Blacks, and to support Zionist ambitions. The politicians will dismantle the U.S. Air Force before they will hold up the welfare checks or shut down the subsidized housing.

If necessary they’ll just print more money. When they are really squeezed they’ll push through whatever legislation they need to counter a tax revolt, and the Federal judges — who feed at the same trough — will back them up.

In the third place, if a tax revolt ever seems to be really catching on, the System will delegate one of its own to “lead” it, and the controlled news media will obediently “legitimize” him. Remember the man the media masters crowned as official spokesman for the “support our President” conservatives during Richard Nixon’s Watergate crucifixion? It was Caiaphas himself: Rabbi Baruch Korff.

This danger of pre-emption exists so long as most members of any movement receive the majority of their information and attitudes regarding the movement through System-controlled channels. It can be avoided only by a movement which is so tightly organized that members look to the movement itself for information and guidance.

There is just one thing that a tax revolt might accomplish, at the very most: it might cause temporary and superficial changes in the System’s way of doing things. If the natives become restless enough, the politicians and the media masters will certainly seek to appease them. They will even risk a little Black unrest in order to ameliorate White anger and resentment. They might even change the tax laws — perhaps even substantially.

And that would be the end of the tax revolt, because 95 percent of the rebels would feel they had accomplished their purpose — which, after all, is merely to reform the System, not to do away with it altogether.

The most lethal weakness of the tax-revolt movement is that it is an ad hoc movement, with nothing other than anger to bind its adherents together, and always subject to being pre-empted by the System. If it were a front or an auxiliary for a movement based on fundamentals, then it might have some tactical value — in stirring up public discontent, in breaking down the public’s awe of the System, in generating internal stress in the System — in helping to prepare the way for permanent and substantive change. But by itself, with nothing fundamental behind it, with no meaningful, long-range goals to further, it is only a trap for fools.

Conservative and right-wing racists work up a perennial enthusiasm for Presidential candidates who, they convince themselves, are secretly on their side. A few years ago their hero was George Wallace. In 1980 it will probably be Ronald Reagan.

Never mind that any politician who has been a state governor in these United States has already compromised himself thoroughly and repeatedly. The right wingers tell themselves he had to say those things to get elected, he had to appoint that Black judge in order to keep his job, he had to wear a yarmulka to that Israel Bonds fundraiser in order to fool the Jews. When he becomes President, they say, he’ll turn the tables on the rascals.

Suppose that, through divine intervention or some other extraordinary means, a U.S. Presidential candidate remained pure in heart up to the day of his inauguration, uncorrupted by the inherently corrupt process which brought him to the White House. Suppose he really were the man his right-wing boosters thought him to be. Suppose he really did want to overturn the System, clean out the entrenched Federal bureaucracy, and restore America to strength, honor, and White precedence (which is about as radical a program as the right-wing imagination can encompass).

How would he do it? He might conceivably have a large enough circle of trusted and true personal friends, also uncorrupted and sharing his secret aims, so that he could pick a cabinet from among them.

Suppose his new secretary of health, education, and welfare then proceeded to halt all racial busing programs.

The media would tear into the new President with a fury which would make their Watergate assault on Nixon seem like good, clean fun in comparison.

The Congress would not approve his budget.

The courts would declare his anti-busing moves unconstitutional.

The entrenched, lower-level bureaucrats would sabotage his programs.

If all that didn’t make him back down, George Meany, Jerry Wurf, and the other labor bosses would paralyze the country with a general strike.

And, of course, the Blacks would riot.

Suppose a couple of top generals in the Pentagon were in cahoots with the President. They could order out the troops to begin arresting the media masters and the Federal judges and the labor bosses and to machine-gun the rioting Blacks.

But the troops wouldn’t go out — not the troops who make up today’s U.S. Army! And there would be any number of officers down the chain of command who would understand what was happening and who would countermand the generals’ orders. There might be quite a bit of confusion for a few hours, even a bit of shooting, but there would be no successful coup d’état.

It is hardly necessary to paint the whole picture, even for the right wingers. The idea of a one-man revolution, or of a revolution by a small group of conspirators, or of any other sly trick which amounts to sneaking up on the System and slipping a sack over its head, is sheer nonsense.

In addition to the myriad specific reasons why such schemes will not work, there are two general reasons which apply to all of them.

First, the System which rules America is a massive, many-headed thing. Those who would change it must be prepared to replace not only the President and his staff and his department heads and the top military leaders, but also tens of thousands of people at the intermediate and lower levels of government.

It is not sufficient merely to shoot the top executives in the TV networks and in the editorial offices of the big-city newspapers. It is necessary to have people immediately at hand to replace them, people who are not only reliable but also competent. And it is likewise necessary to have replacements for the police chiefs of the major cities, for the superintendents of schools, for the Federal and state judges.

No revolution can be carried through successfully which leaves the nation’s legislators, teachers, preachers, labor leaders, business leaders, newsmen, and the leading members of every other segment of society unchanged, still loyal to the old order, still under the influence of old ideas. One must have not one man and not a small group of conspirators, but a revolutionary army which can supply from its ranks an entire social superstructure for the nation to replace the existing superstructure. And the members of this new superstructure must be not only ideologically reliable but also strong and capable people, willing and able to do what is demanded of them.

The second general reason why there is no shortcut to the new order is that America is far sicker than the right wingers realize — or are even capable of understanding. Their general tendency to oversimplify the problem confronting them by thinking in terms of replacing a small number of evildoers with good men, as outlined above, leads also to a failure to see the extent to which the problem is rooted in the general population.

The right-wing tendency is to put all the blame for America’s ills on a few people: on a clique of powerful conspirators (the “insiders”), on the Jews, on the international bankers, on the “trilateralists,” or what have you. (This also happens to be a left-wing tendency, if one excludes the Jews as potential culprits.) The masses of the people are seen as basically healthy but unable to put their sound instincts and their good common sense to work because of the control exerted by the evil conspirators at the top.

Such a view is sheer fantasy.

There are, to be sure, conspirators and conspiracies of various unwholesome sorts. And there most assuredly are Jews, who wield a great deal of power and use it to the enormous detriment of our race. But there is also a disease abroad in our land, and it extends far beyond the Jews and their conspiratorial henchmen. It permeates our whole society and afflicts the great majority of our people.

It does little good to complain about the thieves, the traitors, the Jew-fawners, and the incompetents in the Congress without taking into account the fact that the great, White masses of this country elected them to the Congress because they liked their smiles and their folksy ways. And they keep re-electing them, even after their treachery and their crookedness is revealed.

Hubert Humphrey

Hubert Humphrey

The late Hubert Humphrey was one of the vilest pieces of filth to foul this world with his presence. He unabashedly groveled at the feet of the Jews and sold out the interests of his race over and over again during the more than three decades of his political career. And yet the good people of Minnesota — a nearly all-White state — repeatedly chose him as their senator in Washington.

Nor can the blame be put entirely on the System’s control of the political process for what the Minnesotans did. They may not have been allowed much of an alternative to voting for Humphrey, but it is clear that they did it voluntarily rather than under protest. When Humphrey descended to his just deserts early this year, many a White Minnesotan blubbered mawkishly for the TV cameras about how much “heart” good, old Hubert had.

Right wingers bemoan — and rightly so — the jungle music and the race-mixing TV programs which the Jew-controlled networks broadcast to poison the minds of our people. But they conveniently forget that White Americans listen to that music and watch those programs, not just voluntarily, but enthusiastically. Any right winger who tried to take their Jewish poison away from the White masses and give them something healthy in its place would be in danger of being lynched by those same White masses.

And it does no good to make excuses for the people, to blame their mores and their voting habits on alien influences. Changes in the public’s behavior and attitudes which may be wrought a generation after the overthrow of the System are of little help in overthrowing the System.

What must be taken into account are the facts as they exist now, and one of those facts is that there is no strong, general sentiment in favor of the changes which right-wing racists want to bring about. There is precious little concern even about saving the White race.

Anger at the government’s taxing policies, resentment at being forced to mix with Blacks, dissatisfaction generally with the flabby, inefficient, and corrupt government in Washington are all potentially useful phenomena, of course, but one must be careful not to read too much into them. In particular, one must not nourish with them the false hope that the White people of America will of their own accord rise up against the System — when things have become a little worse, when the confidently predicted “economic crash” comes — and set things right again.

Successful revolution and permanent change can only come through organization, and that is a matter we will examine in National Vanguard next month.

 * * *

From Attack! No. 64, 1978, transcribed by Anthony Collins and edited by Vanessa Neubauer, from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/what-is-to-be-done/feed/ 1
Biological Reality, part 3 http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/biological-reality-part-3/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/biological-reality-part-3/#comments Sat, 10 Jan 2015 13:00:00 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2042 genetic_distance

American Dissident Voices broadcast of January 10, 2015

Listen to the broadcast

by Kevin Alfred Strom

THIS WEEK, I’m concluding my current three-part series on Black/White racial differences. Africans are so different — genetically, physically, chemically, mentally, and behaviorally — that by any reasonable definition they ought to be considered a separate subspecies, if not species. The differences are so pronounced and so well-documented that they prove beyond any doubt that the writers and academicians and commissars who constantly repeat the empty slogans that “race does not exist” and “race is a social construct” are lying. (ILLUSTRATION: Relative genetic distance of various groups is shown in this chart based on the work of Cavalli-Sforza et al.)

* * *

What do scientists mean when they say one race or group . . . → Read More: Biological Reality, part 3]]> genetic_distance

American Dissident Voices broadcast of January 10, 2015

Listen to the broadcast

by Kevin Alfred Strom

THIS WEEK, I’m concluding my current three-part series on Black/White racial differences. Africans are so different — genetically, physically, chemically, mentally, and behaviorally — that by any reasonable definition they ought to be considered a separate subspecies, if not species. The differences are so pronounced and so well-documented that they prove beyond any doubt that the writers and academicians and commissars who constantly repeat the empty slogans that “race does not exist” and “race is a social construct” are lying. (ILLUSTRATION: Relative genetic distance of various groups is shown in this chart based on the work of Cavalli-Sforza et al.)

* * *

What do scientists mean when they say one race or group is more primitive than another? Are Blacks more primitive than other races?

A living population is more primitive than another living population if it has more of the same traits that the last common ancestor of the two populations had. If the last common ancestor is extinct (e.g. erectus) and all we have of it are teeth, bones, and a few stone tools, then [the other] traits of the two populations are compared, either to the traits of chimpanzees, who are assumed to have not evolved drastically away from the chimp-human last common ancestor, or to the traits of living populations of humans who are otherwise known to be primitive. Thus, “primitive” traits are “simian” (ape-like) because they are similar to traits possessed by our last common ancestor with living apes.

Bipedal ape

Many simian traits (e.g., long skull [from back to “snout”], brow ridges, prognathism, small ears, flat nose) are illustrated [in a picture I’ll include in the text version of this broadcast], which shows a computer reconstruction of a bipedal ape… that has some human features. Any human population that has significantly more primitive traits than another population has evolved less away from our ape common ancestor and is therefore more simian and more primitive.

The picture speaks for itself. No one needs me to point out that the bipedal ape resembles rapper “50 cent” — and other typical Blacks — far more than it resembles violinist Bjarte Eike — or any other Whites you care to name. Both are shown in my illustration.

Violinist Eike and rapper "50 Cent"

Violinist Eike and rapper “50 Cent”

To say that a race is primitive is not to say that the modern races evolved from it, but rather that the more primitive race has evolved less.

Ideally, a trait that is primitive will be possessed by all of the large anthropoid apes, will be less pronounced in Homo erectus, and still less so in most humans, so that the prominence of the trait diminishes as genetic distance from apes increases, [though there are exceptions to this].

Primitive traits can also be acquired by interbreeding with a more primitive population…. Primitive traits correlate highly with tropical traits, which is to be expected because our ancestors lived in warmer climates before they evolved traits that enabled them to live in colder climates. Thus, living descendants of those tropical ancestors will tend to retain those tropical primitive traits… Long arms, for example, useful to apes for swinging through the trees, may be retained by their tropical descendants, although they no longer swing through the trees, since long arms are also useful in dissipating heat and throwing objects….

…[A] larger brain is an advantageous… trait in a mentally challenging colder environment, but its high energy cost makes it a disadvantageous trait if the environment is not as mentally challenging….

Far, far more than skin color

Technological advancement can also reduce some primitive traits. A person who is more “robust” (i.e., heavier bones and stronger muscles) is more primitive than a person who is more “gracile” (i.e., lighter bones and less muscular) because apes are more robust and so was early man. A population that is more technologically advanced (e.g., has spears and other long-distance weapons) relies less on physical strength, giving an advantage to more gracile individuals who invest resources in brains instead of strong muscles and bones. (Lewin, 1998). [Eating food obtained through advanced thought (hunting, agriculture)] and cooking food (i.e., controlling fire) to soften it reduced the need for primitive traits such as powerful chewing muscles, large teeth, a supraorbital ridge, a saggital keel, and thick, heavy skull bones.

All of these characteristics are prominent in modern Blacks.

[Psychological tudies have also shown that] both blacks and whites regard black facial characteristics (i.e., primitive traits) as threatening (Lieberman, M.D., 2005; Eberhardt, 2006).

As I pointed out in part one of this series:

…primitive traits found more often in the skulls of Africans include a thicker and narrower skull with less cranial capacity, a more sloping forehead, a more massive protruding jaw, and larger teeth. [The illustration I’ll show in the text version of this broadcast] compares the skull of an ape with a European skull to illustrate these differences. (Howells, 1948, p. 130).  [The next picture] compare[s] a European skull (left) with an African (Sudanese) skull (right). The eye sockets and nasal openings have been aligned. Although it looks like the two skull halves are misaligned, they are not; the smaller brain and larger jaw of the African skull just makes it appear that way.

Ape skull compared with a European’s White/African skulls

Less prominent external nose bones are a primitive trait as early hominoids had no external nose bones; [and] the African nose is “very flat.” (Hanihara, 2000). A less prominent chin and the percentage of skull bones that join on the side of the head are also primitive traits….

Primitive soft tissue traits include larger muscles, larger scent glands, and a smaller, and less fissured brain with a smaller front-to-back ratio (a smaller forebrain), and a thinner supragranular layer in the brain.

…There is some indication in the literature that the African hair type differs in fundamental ways from Eurasian hair in that, among other things, it lacks a central duct. Since Africans and some Asian Negritos have very curly hair, it would be interesting to know if Negrito hair also lacks a central duct. If it did, a reasonable conclusion would be that tropical erectus had hair that lacked a central duct and that such hair is primitive.

Another primitive soft tissue trait that might be mentioned is a sclera (cornea) that is yellowish rather than completely white, usually in only adult males. The primitiveness of this trait is shown by its presence in the gorilla, some Africans, and some of the aborigines of the Pacific.

In apes, the larynx is higher in the throat and, as a result, the number of different sounds they can make, and the ease with which they can control the sounds they make, is diminished. The ability to make more varied sounds means superior communications between people so that they can transfer information more easily and more accurately…. Gibbs (1865) says the larynx of Africans differs from that of whites.

An unusually large mouth is a primitive trait, as it is a characteristic of apes (required for fully opening the mouth to expose the teeth and bite), and most Africans do have large mouths….

The flat nose of Africans is primitive, because apes have very flat noses and external nose bones (needed for a more protruding nose) are absent in apes and early man. The nose only gradually became more prominent, most likely when man moved into colder climates where a longer nasal passage was advantageous in warming inhaled air.

Large buttocks is a primitive African trait as it is found in the most primitive people (Andaman Islanders, Hottentots, and Bushmen…), and prominent buttocks are a feature of some female primates, particularly when in heat (e.g., the baboon).

Reproductive traits: Blacks more like simians

Reproductive strategy is a very fundamental trait as it determines the solution to the all-important problem of how best to create the next generation, which then influences a large number of other traits. A more “r” orientated reproductive strategy [more offspring, less care] is definitely more primitive as man has a more “K” reproductive strategy than any other primate. There is extensive evidence (Rushton, 2000a) that Africans are more “r” orientated. The faster maturation of blacks also applies to the development of their intelligence, which develops close to whites until about age 2, then begins to stagnate. (Chapter 11, FN 12 & Chapter 14, FN 37).

A propensity for violence is a primitive behavioral trait because, as intelligence increased and man became more civilized, intra-populational violence became more disruptive. A propensity for violence correlates with physical traits such as a protruding jaw and large mouth (for biting), strong, dense bones and larger muscles, as well as behavioral traits, such as impulsiveness and the inability to plan for the future, all of which are higher in blacks. Cannibalism was, and still is, a primitive behavioral trait in Africans, despite the best efforts of foolish, but tasty, missionaries to put a stop to it.

Genes tell the truth

The “smoking gun” that proves primitiveness beyond question is genes. If a population has the same alleles that the great apes have, and other populations do not have those alleles, then that population is more primitive. Genetics has just begun to determine the distribution of different alleles among people across the Earth, but the use of chimpanzee and gorilla alleles to identify Africans as the “ancestral” population (i.e., Africans have alleles that chimps and gorillas have, but Eurasians do not have) is widespread.

More recent work is identifying the genes responsible for important traits, such as intelligence and the propensity towards violence. So far, it is known that a few of the alleles thought to be responsible for high intelligence, of the genes microcephalin (“MCPH1″) and ASPM, are rare or absent in Africans. Eventually, all of the alleles responsible for the racial differences in traits will be identified, and their distribution is expected to coincide with the racial distribution of those traits.

Intelligence

Low average intelligence in a population is the most important primitive trait as intelligence has increased over millions of years and it is the defining trait of humans. It is now well-accepted by psychologists that blacks have a lower intelligence.

Civilization tells the truth, too

The inability to create and maintain a civilization or to accomplish much of any note are primitive traits, as earlier hominoids were capable of neither; nor are today’s Africans.

The obvious conclusion

It should be obvious from the preceding that Africans possess a large number of primitive traits, but some South Pacific aborigines possess even more, though they do not necessarily have the same primitive traits that Africans do. Some… aborigines are so primitive that they might even be classified as late Homo erectus instead of Homo sapiens. The number of South Pacific aborigines are not great as the number of Africans, however, and they are concentrated in Australia and the South Pacific Islands and do not present all the social problems that the large numbers of blacks in the West do.

[There is] overwhelming evidence that race is real and that blacks are the most primitive of the major races…. Because research on racial differences, except where they are medically important, has been effectively outlawed for at least the last 50 years, there are no doubt thousands of other racial differences that have not been discovered or published….

The fact is that virtually all of the racial differences between Africans and Eurasians are in traits that are primitive; there are few, if any, African traits that are more modern than Eurasian traits. The evidence comes from a large variety of very different traits, hard tissue, soft tissue, physiology, behavior, intelligence, accomplishments, and genes. And, most importantly, all of the evidence is consistent. It is not the case that genes are saying blacks are modern and bones are saying they are primitive. All of the evidence is saying the same thing – they are primitive, less evolved, and closer to our ape ancestors.

Stackhouse O’Neal Malone

That is why Richard Fuerle chose Erectus Walks Amongst Us as the title for his book, which is the source of much of what I’ve said in this series:

[It’s] not that Homo erectus is alive today as the species that lived from nearly 2 million years ago until as recently as a few tens of thousands, but that erectine alleles long lost by Eurasians are still active in Africans and some aborigine populations, expressing themselves in primitive traits of body and behavior. These traits are readily discernable at a glance, though people are indoctrinated and warned not to notice such things and to deny them if they are mentioned. [Notice] the erectine features of the black athletes [shown in the illustration in the text version of this program]: the prominent brow ridges and receding forehead of Jerry Stackhouse, the protruding jaw of Shaquille O’Neal, and the slight saggital keel of former NBA player Karl Malone.

Genetic distance as evolutionary tree

Whites have romanticized primitive people as “noble savages” and, in movies and on television, they are usually portrayed as competent, wise, and kind-hearted towards whites. Real life data, however, does not support that portrayal. (Keeley, 1996; Wade, 2006; Lablanc, 2003). European soccer fans, who make ape-like hooting noises and throw bananas to taunt black players may be boorish, but biologically, they have a point. Blacks, biologically, have traits that man had hundreds of thousands of years ago. [In the chart I’ll include] the horizontal length of the lines is proportional to genetic distance; the short length of the horizontal line going to “African” indicates that Africans have not evolved much, and the long length of the horizontal line labeled “non-African” indicates that non-Africans have evolved a long way away from Africans.

* * *

There is more — much more, volumes upon volumes more — of data I could cite proving that Africans are inherently, biologically different from us. But I have shown the intelligent and objective listener enough, I think, in the last three weeks to demolish his preposterous prejudice, implanted in childhood and fostered by the controlled media, that the races are “equal.” So I urge all of you who thirst after knowledge to do further research and find out for yourself if what I say is true. Read the sources I’ve cited. Then, when you find out I am right, join the ranks of those who have rediscovered their long- and unnaturally-suppressed sense of racial loyalty — join the ranks of those who thirst after action as well as knowledge. Join the ranks of the men and women of the National Alliance.

Living among Blacks is dangerous for us. It is doubly dangerous for White women and children. It is dangerous in the obvious ways — murder, rape, robbery, assault, and so on — and it is dangerous in more subtle ways too: cultural degeneration, huge losses of wealth to support their burgeoning underclass, introduction of Black mores and behavior among our youth, the demoralization that results when we are no longer allowed to have our own culture and social institutions that are ours alone, and the Black control over governments in many major cities and the stranglehold this places on mass democracy — guaranteeing that we can never vote our way out of this dilemma.

It is especially dangerous to live among them when we have lost control of our government and media to an alien group — the Jews — far more clever and far more hostile to us than Blacks ever were, a group dedicated to mixing us with Blacks and others so that we will cease to be ourselves. By mixing our advanced genes with theirs, we will become them.

The Whites who do so, or encourage others to do so, are committing a sin greater than any other sin. They are exterminating the future children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren who ought to be. And they are throwing away the evolutionary advancement of hundreds of thousands of years.

Living among Blacks in such an unhealthy, suicidal society means death for us, death for our culture, death for our heritage, death for our children, death for our genetic destiny. That’s exactly the situation we’re in.

The extremity of our plight may be a new revelation to many. But it has been known to some advanced thinkers for decades. One such man, physicist Dr. William Pierce, founded the National Alliance, the organization behind this radio program. The National Alliance is dedicated to organizing aware, responsible White men and women into a force to change the future. With the scientific facts on our side, armed with the knowledge of who our enemies are, what they are doing, and why they are doing it, and with an awareness of our place in the history of the evolving universe, we are toppling the myths that enslave us and beginning to build a new community that will ensure our race’s survival and progress. Won’t you help make our voice a stronger one? Go to our Web site, natall.com, and join us today.

* * *

You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance, founded by William Luther Pierce in 1970. This program is published every week at whitebiocentrism.com and nationalvanguard.org. You can join and support us by visiting natall.com — or write to National Alliance, Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. We welcome your support, your inquiries, and your help in spreading our message of hope to our people. Once again, that address is Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on thinking free.

Listen to the broadcast

 

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/biological-reality-part-3/feed/ 2
Criteria for a White Future http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/criteria-for-a-white-future/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/criteria-for-a-white-future/#comments Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:53:55 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2012 Teutonic KnightsAn Editorial by Dr. William Pierce

WHEN A SENSITIVE, intelligent, racially conscious White American observes the hellish business of racial and cultural destruction going on all around him, he ordinarily reacts in one of two ways: he becomes involved in one brand or another of conservative or right-wing foolishness; or he tries to shed his sensitivity and retreat into a detached — one might even say solipsist — “observer” status, in which the world around him becomes unreal, like a drama being played out on a giant, panoramic TV screen. (ILLUSTRATION: The Teutonic Order, an example of an organization that encompassed all four criteria to form a functioning “organizational nexus”: hierarchical, radical, all-encompassing, and racial-elitist. They are pictured here fighting the Mongols in 1241.)

Those who choose the latter route will, in most . . . → Read More: Criteria for a White Future]]> Teutonic KnightsAn Editorial by Dr. William Pierce

WHEN A SENSITIVE, intelligent, racially conscious White American observes the hellish business of racial and cultural destruction going on all around him, he ordinarily reacts in one of two ways: he becomes involved in one brand or another of conservative or right-wing foolishness; or he tries to shed his sensitivity and retreat into a detached — one might even say solipsist — “observer” status, in which the world around him becomes unreal, like a drama being played out on a giant, panoramic TV screen. (ILLUSTRATION: The Teutonic Order, an example of an organization that encompassed all four criteria to form a functioning “organizational nexus”: hierarchical, radical, all-encompassing, and racial-elitist. They are pictured here fighting the Mongols in 1241.)

Those who choose the latter route will, in most cases, stay with it until an unusually violent and personal bump against reality shatters the carefully cultivated illusion that what’s going on in the world doesn’t involve them and isn’t their responsibility. Unfortunately, of these persons the ones with the greatest potential value are those clever and resourceful enough to avoid such bumps — whether a rape or a quota-related promotion denial or an offspring who becomes a race-mixer — until general economic and social conditions have deteriorated much further than they have at this time.

We have attempted, in two previous editorials, to convince those who have chosen — or are contemplating choosing — the former route that it leads to just as much a dead end as the latter. Specifically, we pointed out in the first editorial two basic flaws in the conspiracy-oriented right-wing approach: namely, the failure to recognize both the magnitude of the problem to be solved and its organic nature. The second editorial pointed out why the masses of the people themselves are incapable of effecting any spontaneous solution, and why any approach relying on education alone is forlorn.

Now we shall examine in detail the one possible route to a White future for this planet. It is, as indicated in last month’s editorial, a route which depends upon the establishment of an organizational nexus: that is, a mental and spiritual connection between a carefully selected minority of the White population and an organizational structure of a very special type. Through this nexus flow the information, the impressions, and the feelings which determine the opinions and attitudes of the selected minority, establishing a consensus which allows the minority to think and act effectively as a unit. The organizational nexus takes the place of the present central nexus and the disrupted village nexus of the past.

Not every organization is suitable for this purpose; as mentioned in the first editorial in this series, the organization which can achieve our purpose must be hierarchical, radical, all-encompassing, and racial-elitist. Consider, for the sake of illustration, a few existing organizations which fail to satisfy some or all of these criteria:

Neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party is radical, all-encompassing, or racial-elitist, and their hierarchical structures are only very weakly developed. They are not radical, because they have no purposes or goals rooted in fundamental principles. The “principles” which they do espouse are patently contrived and are subject to instant change to suit the varying needs of each electoral campaign.

They are not all-encompassing, because they address themselves to a quite limited array of issues and provide no guidance at all, even for their staunchest adherents, on those aspects of life outside that limited array. That is, the nexus between the organization and its members is incomplete. The incomplete nexus may provide a consensus on a few narrowly defined issues, but it provides no general consensus, no common world view for the membership.

And it is quite clear that they are not organized along racial-elitist lines. It is a fact that the Republican Party tends to have a much more nearly White membership than the Democratic Party, but that is a fact which the Republicans are desperately trying to change. Both parties are interested solely in the quantity of votes they can muster, and they care not at all about the racial quality of the voters.

The hierarchical structures of the two parties are severely limited in two ways: First, officials are elected by the mass of party members, through a delegate system, and are subject to new elections at frequent intervals. This leads to a strong tendency on the part of the officials to cater to the changing whims of the membership rather than to adhere to any long-term strategy, and it breaks up the continuity of leadership.

Second, authority is fragmented by intra-party rivalries between the stronger candidates for public office, who often establish their own competing mini-hierarchies within the overall hierarchy and think of the party primarily as a vehicle for furthering their own public careers; thus, the party often plays second fiddle to one or more of its own candidates.

The U.S. Army is an organization which satisfies the hierarchical criterion quite nicely, but none of the others. The racial-sensitivity indoctrination to which recruits are now routinely subjected and the occasional servings of democratic ideology dished out along with the military training hardly suffice to qualify the Army as either a radical or an all-encompassing organization.

It may be an all-pervasive physical influence on the lives of its members, but they remain almost as diverse ideologically and spiritually as the members of the civilian population. And it goes without saying that the U.S. Army of today is not racial-elitist, regardless of any tendencies in that direction in the past.

The various Christian churches vary in the degrees to which they satisfy one or more of our criteria. The Roman Catholic Church still has a moderately strong hierarchical structure, although it is yielding more and more to schismatic tendencies and democratic rot. Many of the Protestant churches, on the other hand, are no more hierarchical than the Democratic and Republican Parties.

The Roman Catholics and the Protestant Fundamentalists vie with one another in their degree of radicalism, with some of the more extreme Fundamentalist sects easily edging out the Catholic Church. But other Protestant groups have succumbed to modern, secular tendencies to such an extent that they have a zero radicalism quotient.

During the Middle Ages the Roman Catholic Church came close to being an all-encompassing organization in some parts of Europe, principally in the Mediterranean area. Today it dominates the lives of its members to a far lesser extent in most places, although still more than the larger Protestant sects. A few radical Protestant groups, however, especially those flourishing in geographically isolated or culturally backward areas, still exercise a very strong influence on all aspects of the lives of their members.

Although some of the church-related knightly orders of the Middle Ages may have been de facto racial-elitist (the Teutonic Order, alone of the major orders, was also de jure racial-elitist), all the Christian churches today are strongly anti-racial-elitist and, in fact, collectively present one of the greatest threats to the survival of the White race.

It is dangerous to name any single organization as an example which satisfies our four criteria, because many readers will inevitably see any such organization as a model, to be copied in ways irrelevant, as well as in those ways relevant, to our purpose. The one group mentioned above which does, in fact, meet the four criteria is the Teutonic Order, and it should be kept in mind that, while it is an interesting illustrative example, it is not a model which we want to copy in every detail.

Although the Teutonic Order, as originally conceived toward the close of the twelfth century, was a Christian charitable society, associated with St. Mary’s Hospital in Jerusalem, founded by German Crusaders, it very soon became a military-religious order, with the task of Christianizing, by fire and sword, the heathen peoples of central and eastern Europe. Beyond that it accepted and admirably accomplished the mission of carrying German culture and the German spirit to the eastern marches and transforming them into integral parts of Germanic Europe.

Despite the Order’s later involvement in all the crass commercial and political affairs of the conquered territories, it was not an ad hoc organization; neither money nor politics were motives of its founders. With a transcendent religious zeal and a fervent devotion to what was then perceived as fundamental truth, the Teutonic Order was truly a radical organization.

The ritual, the mystique, the vows and code of behavior of the Order stemmed from its radicalism, and they contributed to its all-encompassing influence over its members: After taking vows of poverty, obedience, and chastity, the Teutonic Knights partook of a semi-monastic lifestyle. They wore a distinctive monk’s habit (white with a black cross) over their armor. When not in the field they lived communally in the castles and fortified houses (Ordensburgen) which they built to rivet down the inexorably advancing frontier of their conquests. Prayers and other monkish pastimes were almost as much a part of their lives as the martial arts.

Screen Shot 2015-01-03 at 2.41.07 PMThe Order, as is necessary in the case of any organization with a military function, was structured hierarchically. A grand master of the Order was chosen for life by the members of what amounted to a general staff. Five members of this general staff formed a permanent ministry, or privy council, which aided the grand master in his executive duties.

Each of the provinces or territories under the Order’s control was organized similarly, with a provincial commander having a provincial council of knights as subordinate officers. Finally, each Ordensburg was under the authority of a commander subordinate to the provincial commander and advised by a council consisting of all the knights belonging to that Ordensburg.

The Teutonic Order accepted as members only Germans of noble birth. As mentioned above, it was the only major knightly order of the Middle Ages which was not cosmopolitan in its membership policy. This represented quite a departure from the policy of a church which clasped to its bosom every baptized Jew and Levantine convert, no matter how dusky his hue.

The Order’s racial-elitism, unfortunately, was not as thoroughgoing as it might have been, since the group’s principal purpose was not so much the racial improvement of the eastern marches as their conversion to Christianity and their Germanization, in the political-cultural sense. In fact, the Order’s rule of celibacy acted dysgenically, resulting in the extirpation of some of Europe’s best genes and contributing to the racial impoverishment of the German nobility.

Nevertheless, the restrictive membership policies, by giving the Order a high degree of racial homogeneity, undoubtedly heightened its esprit de corps and contributed substantially to its military successes. The Teutonic Knights were, indeed, a band of brothers.

During the thirteenth century the Order conquered Old Prussia, and in the following century the Baltic states, extending German rule along the southeastern and eastern coasts of the Baltic Sea and as far up the Gulf of Finland as Narva.

Although Pomerania, the (at that time) Slavic province stretching along the southern coast of the Baltic Sea on both sides of the Oder, had already been Christianized in the twelfth century, the Teutonic Knights played a major role in reshaping its political and cultural destiny during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. A similar role was played in the March of Brandenburg, where the Order’s dominating influence reached as far west as the Elbe.

All in all the Teutonic Order significantly and permanently shifted the course of European history and exerted a tremendous military, political, and cultural influence over vast territories, inhabited by millions of people, throughout a period of more than two centuries. The truly astounding aspect of this achievement was the Order’s size: it never had as many as a thousand members.

It more than made up for this lack of numbers in two ways: in the exceptionally high quality of its members and in the organizational nexus which bound the members together. The nexus was complete; the members’ commitment to the organization’s goals was total. Beyond these two things, the organization’s hierarchical structure resulted in efficient decision-making, continuity of purpose, and internal stability.

Conditions in the world have changed mightily since the Middle Ages, but the human condition has not. Although the Teutonic Order itself would be awkwardly anachronistic in today’s world, the fundamental organizational principles which led to its success seven centuries ago remain valid. The achievement of a radical purpose, against a numerically superior opposition, calls for an organization of exceptionally capable, highly motivated, totally committed people able to function in a completely coordinated manner.

Imagine a modern American Order founded for an ad hoc political purpose, say, the forced annexation of Canada to the United States so as to gain control of Canada’s nickel deposits and oil sands; an American Order organized along the lines of the Republican Party, consisting of members signed up by neighborhood canvassers; an American Order like the present U.S. Army, with recruiting brochures stressing that the Order is “an equal opportunity employer” and offering the inducement of foreign travel and free occupational training. Imagine such an American Order setting out to conquer Canada . . . with fewer than a thousand members.

The idea is, of course, laughable.

No ad hoc organization, no organization based purely on self-interest, no organization structured democratically, and no organization composed of the same number of average citizens could have accomplished what the Teutonic Order did — nor can it accomplish what we must.

For continuity of purpose during a long struggle, for unwavering concentration on long-range goals through periods of adversity, for winning and holding members with the requisite personal characteristics, for resisting centrifugal tendencies and internal subversion, and for evoking the degree of individual commitment necessary to overcome an enormous numerical disadvantage, the four organizational criteria cited above must be met.

There is also another compelling reason why a complete organizational nexus is necessary. People recruited from the U.S. civilian population, even the most intelligent people, are inevitably under the influence of the prevailing mores. The values and attitudes of the larger society bias their outlooks. In particular, popular taboos inhibit the acceptance of some of the harsher revolutionary realities and the carrying out of necessary actions.

This was not a problem for the Teutonic Order. Its members were not required to act in contravention of established taboos. The values and teachings of the Christian church in that more virile era were perfectly consonant with using any necessary degree of force to convince pagans of the error of their ways. Nor were the Teutonic Knights attempting to change the existing moral order in any way; they wanted only to increase the number of souls subject to it.

In America, on the other hand, the essential task of a movement of national liberation and racial progress is the rooting out of the decadent mores of the present and their replacement with a new and fundamentally different set of values, attitudes, and customary behavior. Unless the adherents of such a movement — especially its cadres — have themselves undergone this process of spiritual renewal, there is little chance that they will be able to bring about such a change in the larger society, regardless of any temporary political or military successes they may achieve.

Screen Shot 2015-01-03 at 2.43.19 PMAnd the only way that a movement’s members can reasonably be expected to shed their old values and attitudes and assimilate new ones is through a complete organizational nexus. A little optional reading for new members is insufficient. Instead, each member must become completely involved with the ideas and the activities of an organization, not only reading and studying all the organization’s publications, but also discussing them with others, attending meetings, distributing leaflets and newspapers publicly, and otherwise devoting a substantial portion of each day to this involvement.

Only in this way will the new values and attitudes gradually replace the old ones, with the member becoming more and more confident in his understanding of the new world view and basing his daily decisions on it more and more naturally and unconsciously. And, thus, it is clear that, for this process to take place, not only must the organization be radical (i.e., fundamental in its treatment of issues), but it must also have an all-encompassing approach to the world and to its members.

* * *

From Attack! No. 66, 1979, transcribed by Anthony Collins and edited by Vanessa Neubauer, from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/criteria-for-a-white-future/feed/ 2
The Task of the National Alliance http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/the-task-of-the-national-alliance/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/the-task-of-the-national-alliance/#comments Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:05:25 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2016 Roaring LionAn Editorial by Dr. William Pierce

IN THREE EARLIER ISSUES (National Vanguard, nos. 64, 65, 66) we examined some of the social factors relevant to a racially oriented revolution in America and stated several general criteria for any organizational basis of such a revolution. In this issue we will look more specifically at the factors which govern the priorities of the National Alliance and determine the nature of its task. We will attempt to understand, on the basis of present conditions in America, what can be done now and what cannot be done, so that we can see better how to concentrate our energies on those organizational objectives we can realistically hope to achieve. (ILLUSTRATION: “A lion might be fair or just… but the possibility does not even exist for a sheep.” — WLP)

One . . . → Read More: The Task of the National Alliance]]> Roaring LionAn Editorial by Dr. William Pierce

IN THREE EARLIER ISSUES (National Vanguard, nos. 64, 65, 66) we examined some of the social factors relevant to a racially oriented revolution in America and stated several general criteria for any organizational basis of such a revolution. In this issue we will look more specifically at the factors which govern the priorities of the National Alliance and determine the nature of its task. We will attempt to understand, on the basis of present conditions in America, what can be done now and what cannot be done, so that we can see better how to concentrate our energies on those organizational objectives we can realistically hope to achieve. (ILLUSTRATION: “A lion might be fair or just… but the possibility does not even exist for a sheep.” — WLP)

One fact of overriding importance should be kept in mind throughout what follows: the situation faced today by the National Alliance is historically unique. Very few of the “classical” conditions for revolution exist in America today, and therefore, the classical expositions of revolutionary theory are largely irrelevant to an understanding of our task.

There is, for example, no revolutionary class in the White population of America, nor a revolutionary consensus. And, as explained earlier, the system of public opinion control which functions in America today — the central nexus — makes it extraordinarily difficult for anyone without his fingers on the controls of that nexus to generate revolutionary sentiment. That is a situation entirely new under the sun.

America is hurtling down the steep slope of racial mongrelization; national, cultural, and racial death lie in wait at the bottom of the slope. But the prospect is not one which rouses revolutionary fervor in large numbers of people; the level of abstraction is too high for the average person, who does not yet feel personally threatened.

That will change somewhat as the press and clamor of the growing non-White hordes in America become more vexing and the economy worsens. The latter irritant will probably increase more precipitously than would have been predicted only a few months ago, now that President Jimmy Carter has put the finishing touches on the alienation of our sources of imported energy with his Jew-dictated “peace” in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, the relative comfort and sense of security — justified or not — of the average White American at this time cuts the ground beneath any strategy based on winning mass support for revolutionary action.

What applies to the White masses also applies to the business, professional, and intellectual elements of the middle class. Most of the latter are better informed than the masses about the destructive processes at work in America, and there is a substantial amount of concern for the future among them; nevertheless, their state of mind and their viewpoint are such that there is very little prospect of winning the support of a majority of them for a radical program at this time. The same conservatism and egocentrism which afflict the masses afflict them, although the maladies may be manifested in somewhat different forms in the two cases.

The masses always have been and always will be essentially conservative in outlook rather than radical, whether they are supporting or opposing the government over them at any particular time.

During the Vietnam War for example, there was a great deal of talk, especially on university campuses, about opposition to the government’s policies “radicalizing” the students and others opposed to continued U.S. participation in the war. The talk was sheer nonsense, as was proved when the whole so-called “movement” collapsed in 1973. Its existence had depended on the immediate irritant provided by the war, rather than on any demand for fundamental social changes.

This editor participated in several of the largest anti-war demonstrations in Washington during the 1968–1972 period, mingling with other demonstrators and listening to their conversations (and getting severely tear-gassed once for his efforts). Not only did the great majority of the demonstrators have no real understanding of the issues involved, but they had no more radical an outlook than the average American.

Even among more violent demonstrators, who “trashed” government buildings and assaulted policemen, no evidence of real radicalism was seen, except on the part of their Jewish leaders. There may have been more alienation, more irresponsibility, but very little commitment to fundamental ideas of any sort.

The one thing the anti-Vietnam leaders had going for them was an effective organizational basis for their demonstrations and their propaganda. This organizational basis was staffed with capable and highly motivated cadres, and it allowed the Reds to accomplish a remarkable feat of subversion, even without a revolutionary consensus or radicalized masses. At the height of their power they could put more than a quarter-million protesters on the streets of Washington, and they could make it look convincingly revolutionary.

There are other valuable lessons to be learned from the Jewish effort to use the Vietnam War as a revolutionary instrument, but for the moment we are concerned with just two: first, the aforementioned non-radical outlook of the average White, even when a temporary situation exists which makes him amenable to recruitment for a revolutionary purpose; and, second, the absolute necessity of a thoroughly radicalized cadre organization being already at hand if any useful action at all is to be gotten from the masses when such a situation does arise.

During the Vietnam era the Left drew its cadres almost exclusively from the Jewish population, which constitutes a perpetually radicalized reservoir of manpower and leadership for almost any anti-White cause. An analogous reservoir of pro-White radicals does not exist at this time, either among the masses or among the more illuminated strata of the White population: those White elements whose intelligence, sense of responsibility, and relative independence of the media lift them well above the level of the masses.

The conservatism of the masses is mindless resistance to change and to new ideas. The conservatism of the other elements is more the inability to encompass ideas which lie outside a rather rigidly egocentric mental frame, an inability to rise above a conceptual basis which is constructed on outmoded values, an inability to visualize a wholly new kind of world or to grasp the ethical concepts which must govern that new world and which transcend their own. And it is ultimately based on a lack of moral courage.

Let us look at this latter conservatism; let us trace its roots and see how it relates to the task of the National Alliance. Over and over again one hears this argument: “The National Alliance has a fundamental lack of goodwill towards Blacks, Jews, and the members of the present political establishment. Without such goodwill the Alliance cannot hope to achieve any kind of fair settlement of America’s present problems and internal conflicts. Therefore, most White Americans, who are fair-minded and are people of goodwill, will not go along with the Alliance.”

Screen Shot 2015-01-03 at 3.41.26 PMThis argument comes not only from TV-brained nitwits, but also from a great many intelligent, thoughtful Whites. And it is, with a couple of important qualifications to be mentioned shortly, a correct argument.

It is true that the Alliance has no goodwill at all toward the enemies of our race. The Alliance is not concerned with Black survival or Jewish survival or Mexican survival, but only with White survival. The Alliance has not an ounce of charity for the gallows birds who make up the System currently governing America and who have so shamelessly betrayed our race.

It is also true that the average American is fair-minded — in a sense. He thinks in an individual-centered frame, while we think in a race-centered frame. He carefully distinguishes between “good” Blacks and “bad” Blacks, between “loyal” Jews and Zionists. We lump them all together, and that clearly is not “fair,” by his standards.

Implicit in the argument for fairness and goodwill are two major assumptions; one concerns the nature of the race problem and the other its solution.

It is assumed that the race problem is one of street crime, deteriorating schools, declining military morale and efficiency, rising welfare burden, etc. There would be, from the viewpoint of the person making the argument, no race problem if all Blacks obeyed the law, supported their families by honest labor, adopted a White lifestyle, and voted Republican — as some actually do.

And the only solution of which a person with such a viewpoint can conceive is a negotiated one, a compromise designed to end the present strife and unpleasantness, a sitting down with Black and Jewish leaders and saying to them in effect, “If you will keep your people in line, if you will reason with them and be reasonable with us, then we will bend over yet a little further backward for you. We’ll work something out which will protect your interests as well as ours.”

Of course, such an approach to the race problem is not only based on the wrong values, it is an approach which must ultimately fail, as it is failing now, because the problem is a biological one, and it requires a biological solution — a fact which has been treated at length in other issues of National Vanguard.

But the relevant point here is that the average American’s mental frame simply cannot expand to encompass that fact and its implications. And, at this point in history, the same is true of most un-average Americans as well. Therefore, most Americans (including most intelligent and thoughtful Americans) will not support the National Alliance — at this time.

The divergence of viewpoints between the Alliance and the average American goes so far that many Americans are suspicious of our motives. They think, “The Alliance must secretly be a communist organization, whose purpose is to make the country’s problems worse instead of curing them.” They reason (correctly) that any non-White who reads a National Vanguard will become more hostile toward Whites as a result, making a peaceful settlement all the more difficult. Therefore, they conclude (incorrectly) that we don’t want a solution to the race problem.

It is difficult to convince a person who believes the foregoing that he is in error, because our value system and his are entirely different.

Nevertheless, despite the barrier to communication caused by this difference in viewpoints, the future is not so bleak as it may seem. The qualification made a couple of paragraphs earlier — “at this time” — is an important one. That is because the famous American “fair-mindedness” is a rather more tenuous thing than those who presently glory in it are willing to admit. The time may never come when honest Americans — even intelligent ones — will be able to expand their mental frameworks enough to fully encompass our view of the world, but the time will certainly come when their view of what is “fair” will change drastically.

The fact is that White Americans like to think of themselves as fair-minded, as just, as humane, but the truth is that the great majority of them simply do not have the moral courage which is a necessary concomitant to those traits.

Consider, for example, America’s entry into the Second World War. The masses, of course, were oblivious to what was going on, as always. But a great many Americans were not. Tens of thousands of journalists, of public officials, of teachers and professors, of leaders of German-American groups, of influential writers knew the truth of the matter at first hand.

They knew the true nature of the National Socialist awakening in Germany, and they approved of it. They knew that something of the sort was necessary for a resurgence of the White race. And they knew that the Jews were behind all of Roosevelt’s deceitful moves to get America involved in the war to destroy Germany — in particular, his maneuvering to bring about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and enter the war via the back door, after his infamous orders to the U.S. Navy to fire on sight at all German vessels on the high seas failed to provoke the Germans into a declaration of war.

And in 1939 and 1940 many of those who knew what was going on spoke out. Even after the war started in Europe in September 1939 National Geographic, for example, carried unbiased reporting on Germany, despite the torrent of venomous Jewish abuse this policy caused to be directed at the magazine. While the Jew-owned Washington Post and New York Times shrieked about the German annexation of Danzig in terms of a “brutal crushing of Danzigers’ independence under the hobnailed jackboots of Nazi stormtroopers,” the National Geographic quietly pointed out in its issue of November 1939 that 93 percent of the Danzigers were Germans, and that the city-state had joyfully welcomed its reunification with Germany after the artificial separation imposed 20 years earlier by the Versailles Treaty.

Well-known speakers, including aviation pioneer Charles Lindbergh, addressed huge public meetings denouncing Roosevelt and the Jews and the other war schemers. History, political science, and law professors at Yale and Harvard openly scoffed at the official government lies of German aggression and of Hitler’s supposed plans for invading the United States via South America.

There were even a few politicians in the Congress who were still willing to speak the truth as late as 1941.

But as the Jewish economic and political pressure mounted, as more and more politicians were bought for the Jewish side, as the pro-war newspapers became shriller and more insistent, the fair-minded people who knew what was going on began to become more timid about speaking out. After the successful engineering of the Pearl Harbor attack, virtually all of them fell silent. Hardly any of them were brave enough to say what they all knew: that it was the United States, not Germany, which was the aggressor.

Only a tiny handful, a few dozen out of the former tens of thousands, continued to stand up for the truth, for justice, for humanity, for what was right. The rest fell into line with Roosevelt and the Jews.

When the U.S. government announced that the Germans were boiling down babies to make soap, the thousands who knew it was a lie kept their mouths shut. When the United States began its policy of saturation bombing of German population centers in response to the hate-crazed Jews’ demands that as many German civilians as possible be killed, all those White Americans who knew it was genocide remained silent.

They not only remained silent, but most of them hastened to appease those they should have opposed. They joined the armed forces; they did volunteer work; they became even more “patriotic” than the warmongers, so no one could suspect them of being pro-Nazi.

There were liberals, true pacifists opposed to all wars on principle, who were more courageous in their opposition to the Jews than these “fair-minded” conservatives. When fair-mindedness became inconvenient, they abandoned it. When it became dangerous to stand up for justice, they accepted injustice. When the moral pressure to conform became sufficiently great, they switched sides and supported policies they had previously opposed.

It wasn’t just that they weren’t willing to put their lives on the line for what they thought was right; they weren’t even willing to put income or social status on the line.

And it has always been the same. In World War I the eminent British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote a jingoistic pamphlet for mass distribution in which he claimed that the Germans were bayoneting Belgian babies and cutting off their hands for souvenirs. He knew it was a lie, and he knew it would encourage British counter-atrocities against the Germans, but he didn’t have the moral courage to refuse to “do his bit” for the British war effort.

But one doesn’t have to go to history to understand the point being made here. Every member of the National Alliance has had the experience of hearing a “fair-minded” conservative explaining that he can’t support the Alliance because we are not as concerned about justice for non-Whites as we are about justice for Whites, but who has been conspicuously silent about the Jewish treatment of the Palestinians — and about every other glaring injustice in today’s world, when silence was the only safe response.

One might point out to one of these virtuous citizens that unless drastic and sweeping measures to bring about total, geographical racial separation are taken — measures which are sure to cause hardship to a great many non-Whites who have never deliberately harmed us — then the White race will continue to suffer the contamination of its gene pool which is the inevitable consequence of racial integration. One might point out that if this contamination continues, it will eventually destroy the White race, as it has destroyed segments of our race in various parts of the world throughout history, from India to South America, and one might ask what is “fair” about that.

One might ask whether he favors giving North America back to the Indians, since it was certainly “unfair” of our ancestors to take it away from them. One might ask whether he believes the whole White race should just lie down and die, since the entire history of the world in reality consists of nothing more than a series of “injustices” perpetrated on the weak by the strong in Nature’s unending process of upward struggle — and it is a fact that until this peculiar obsession with “fairness” to non-Whites took hold of us in recent years, it has been the White race which has most often been strong — and which has, in other words, been most “unfair.”

One might point out to him that the notion of fairness is one which arose and exists in the White man’s mind only. It is a notion concerned only with the White man’s dealings with his own kind, and it loses its whole meaning when applied to interracial relations.

But, of course, there is no point in asking such questions, in raising such points, for the fair-minded Americans who criticize our lack of charity for the enemies of our race are totally inconsistent in their logic, and logic will not persuade them.

They are like the Pharisees in the old parable who fastidiously strain out a gnat from their wine but swallow a camel without noticing it. Their position has nothing to do with fairness or justice, but only with hypocrisy and cowardice.

A lion might be fair or just, if he were so inclined, but the possibility does not even exist for a sheep.

What all this means for the Alliance is that the moral attitudes of the better-informed elements, just like those of the masses, are almost wholly dependent on external circumstances rather than on any unyielding inner convictions. Most will never expand their ethical concepts to the extent that they see fairness and justice from a racial or cosmic viewpoint instead of an egocentric one, just as a sheep will never become a lion. But they most assuredly will change their attitudes about what is fair as their personal circumstances change, and a great many who will not support the Alliance now will support it in the future.

The Alliance does not have the capability at this time to change the objective conditions which determine most people’s attitudes; it must depend on the forces of history for that.

It follows, therefore, that the Alliance must pursue a minority strategy rather than a majority strategy for the time being, unless it abandons its fundamental approach altogether and caters instead to the shortsighted prejudices of the majority. The latter is a course wholly alien to the Alliance, one which would destroy the very foundations on which it rests.

Thus, the short- and intermediate-term strategy of the Alliance is based on participation by an elite minority carefully sifted out of the overall White population rather than on direct participation by the White masses or by the bulk of the conservative elements among the professional/intellectual class.

Screen Shot 2015-01-03 at 3.42.09 PMFor the foreseeable future our program is to appeal to, reach, move, and recruit the members of this radicalizable elite, wherever they may be, and to build with them a function-oriented organizational structure: a structure made up of cadres, each of whom has specific functional responsibilities.

It is one thing to tackle such a building program during a time of mass revolutionary ferment, when these functional responsibilities can be oriented directly toward immediate revolutionary goals involving large numbers of people; it is quite another thing during times of relative public lethargy and indifference, when cadres and masses have much more strongly divergent interests.

The latter case prevails, and the tasks of the National Alliance have been defined accordingly.

These tasks, in accordance with the conclusions reached above, are not directed at attempting to persuade or mobilize the masses, or to change the objective conditions or irritants to which the masses are subjected. They are directed instead toward building a permanent basis and a permanent structure which exist independently of the masses and which grow and develop without mass participation, but which nevertheless have the capability of persuading the masses, for changing the conditions which motivate them, and for mobilizing at least portions of them at some later time.

The difference may seem only one of emphasis, but it is a very important difference. One cannot hope for much success in building an organization whose entire raison d’être is its ability to mobilize masses, when it is clear to any intelligent observer that the chance of accomplishing such mobilization is vanishingly slim. Such an organization is in essence an ad hoc organization, and the hoc is just not credible at this point in history.

Yet the fact remains that without an organizational basis for mobilization at hand when we reach a different point of history, one at which mass mobilization is conceivable, it cannot be accomplished. And the conditions which will prevail at such time will not be conducive to laying careful foundations and erecting sound, well-designed structures on them. The prize will fall to the faction which has done its building beforehand, not to the one which begins then.

And so the National Alliance has backed off a bit from the ad hoc approach and has addressed itself more instead to providing an organizational embodiment of a world view, an embodiment whose value is as much per se as ad hoc, as much intrinsic as extrinsic.

That is, while the tasks and functions of the Alliance are never wholly divorced from the eventual necessity of mass mobilization, neither are they wholly dependent on that eventuality. They offer to the prospective cadre worthwhile goals to which he can wholeheartedly devote all his energies, for a lifetime if need be, even if he never engages in any mass-oriented activity. At the same time, however, he is never allowed to forget that such activity must eventually come and that the capability for it must have been prepared beforehand if it is to be meaningful and productive.

The intrinsic tasks and functions of the Alliance, those necessary for their own sake, are several. One is to provide a fixed pole of the spirit in the swirling chaos of falsehood and illusion surrounding our people in this era, an outcropping of bedrock of immutable principle amid the drifting sands of change and decay, a citadel of the ageless values of our race.

At a time when not only the alien-controlled media, but also the schools, the churches, the government, the political parties, big business, and big labor — every institution with a stake in the present system — habitually lie, changing their tune from month to month, holding a moistened forefinger to the shifting breezes of opportunity before deciding what stand to take, tolerating every evil and encouraging every weakness for the sake of expediency, riddled with cynicism and a total disregard for the truth, it is essential that there be one institution which knows and speaks the truth.

Even the supposedly “patriotic” and “conservative” institutions in the society of today weasel on the really vital issues, fawning at the feet of alien masters, denying the differences in the value of the various races.

One institution must be incorruptible and uncompromising, speaking the truth not just on the “safe” issues, but on all issues; not just the fashionable and convenient aspects of the truth, but the whole truth.

One institution must, in particular, say the things about race, about the Jews, about the inequality of individuals, about the corruption of this society, about the false values on which it is based, about the inadequacy of democracy, about the falsification of our history, and about all the other things which are essential to the material and spiritual life of our people but which other institutions will not speak about.

And this one institution must not be merely a dusty repository of the truth, speaking in a quiet voice heard only by a few. Many academicians are already doing that much, on at least a few issues, reporting the truth about race in their dry professional journals, or quietly setting the historical record straight. But very few people hear or see those truths. There must be one institution which is a beacon of truth for all those who want to see, a loudspeaker for all who are willing to hear, so that the truth is at least accessible to every intelligent and open-minded man and woman of our race, to every potential member of the elite mentioned above. The masses may not want to hear or see at this time, but there are a great many individuals who do.

Even though this institution may not be able to compete with the controlled media for the minds of the masses — even though it may not even try to compete — it nevertheless needs to be more than a static oracle. It needs to elaborate and elucidate the truth, to simplify and explain it as well as proclaim it. It must speak to more than scholars, and it must be dynamic, exploring new ramifications, developing new vehicles: fiction, poetry, film, drama. It must speak to the heart as well as to the mind.

In addition to the propagation of truth, a vital task of the Alliance is keeping hope alive. A key element of the strategy of the enemies of our people is convincing all of us that the destruction of the White race through racemixing is inevitable, that there is no point in resistance, that mongrelization and White decline are the wave of the future, that the Jews are unbeatable, that all the smart money is on their side and that anyone who opposes them is a sucker, a loser, a fool.

One of our responsibilities is to remind people — not necessarily the masses, but those individuals concerned with more than their sex lives and their bank accounts, our elite — that the Jews are beatable; that not everyone has given up; that there are intelligent, responsible, articulate people who are unconditionally committed to putting a final end to Jewish scheming and to this system based on Jewish values, no matter how long it takes or how much sacrifice is required.

We must always keep one light burning and one door open, no matter how black the darkness before the dawn, so that every racially conscious White person has a place to turn when he is finally ready to take up the fight himself.

Propagating truth, upholding hope, even for the few — those are two very concrete and vital functions. And there is another, which is the closely related function of maintaining a living community embodying the spiritual values of our race.

In a certain sense every spiritually healthy White person does this, whether he is a member of the Alliance or not, because these values are inherent in the race-soul of our people; they exist at the genetic level. But aside from the fact that there are all too few spiritually healthy people in today’s sick world, that living in the midst of soul-sick people tends to be spiritually unhealthy in itself, it is important that spiritual values do more than lie dormant in our genes; it is important that they be manifested in the life of a community, that they be expressed in the program, the activities, the propaganda of a living group.

And all these functions, involving truth, hope, and spirit, are clearly tied quite closely together. As already stated, the organization which wants to effectively propagate truth must do more than simply print dry news, accessible only to specialists. In order to have any effect on even an intelligent and open-minded minority of our people, it must, as stated above, speak to the heart as well as to the mind. It must employ media other than newspapers.

And it follows, then, that when the Alliance is fulfilling its task of propagating truth effectively it is also upholding hope for White survival and manifesting the spiritual values of our race at the same time.

Now, because our task involves these several interrelated functions — because we are concerned not just with printing a newspaper but with doing all the other things necessary to reach, to inform, and to move an elite minority of our people — it must also involve certain organizational functions.

Even if our only function were to be the publication of a newspaper, requiring a full-time writing, editorial, and business staff of only a dozen or so cadres, we would still be obliged to concern ourselves with organization, because of the necessity of carrying out our own distribution. The elite minority capable of responding to our message now consists of several hundred thousand persons — perhaps as many as one percent of the adult White population of the United States — and reaching them effectively requires an active membership of several thousand persons willing to participate in a vigorous distribution program.

And doing the other things we must do besides publishing and distributing a newspaper requires much more in the way of organizational capacity. It requires more cadres; it requires a larger rank-and-file membership from which to draw those cadres and to carry out supporting functions (newspaper distribution being only one); and it requires a well-designed, smoothly operating organizational framework within which both cadres and rank-and-file members can function effectively in the performance of their coordinated tasks.

All of these things fall into the category labeled above as “intrinsic.” They are necessary and worthwhile even in an era in which mass organization for a radical purpose cannot be realistically attempted. But it is clear that our intrinsic and extrinsic functions are closely tied together. The intrinsic capabilities described above are very similar to the capabilities needed for reaching and moving a much larger number of people, when conditions are proper. The organizational structure necessary for coordinating our intrinsic activities provides a nucleus around which a much larger organization can eventually be built.

Today — and next year — we concern ourselves almost solely with our intrinsic task. But at a later time, no matter when, we shall find that all our intrinsic labors, if we perform them well, will have laid the necessary and sufficient foundation for accomplishing our extrinsic task.

* * *

From Attack! No. 69, 1979, transcribed by Anthony Collins and edited by Vanessa Neubauer, from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

FacebookTumblrShare

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/the-task-of-the-national-alliance/feed/ 0