Allen Ginsberg: Media Model for America’s Youth
by Dr. William L. Pierce
THREE WEEKS ago a man named Allen Ginsberg (pictured) died, at the age of 70. If you were a university student in the 1960s or 1970s, his name will be very familiar to you. He was the person chosen by the media to be the number-one guru for America’s youth during that period. He’s been a sort of secondary guru ever since, and if you studied literature even in the 1980s or 1990s you got a dose of him. He always was treated in a worshipful sort of way by the media, in order to make the more gullible young people believe that he was some sort of genius who was to be taken very seriously. We could see this same worshipful attitude again when the media people reported his death earlier this month. I listened to NBC’s Tom Brokaw talk about Ginsberg on the evening television news. Brokaw behaved as if he were reporting the death of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. He spoke of Ginsberg as if he had been a talented and sensitive poet, a great soul who had passed away, leaving us all sadder and poorer for the loss. He even read the first line of one of Ginsberg’s so-called “poems,” Howl. And he did it all with a straight face. There was no hint in his facial expression or tone of voice that he wasn’t completely serious. I didn’t see the way the other TV-news anchor-people dealt with Ginsberg’s death, but I presume it was similar to the way Brokaw did it. Certainly, the tone of all of the print media that I saw also was worshipful.
Let me tell you about Allen Ginsberg, this great and sensitive soul who contributed so much to America and whose passing we all should mourn. Ginsberg was a drug-crazed, homosexual, Communist Jew. I do not use any of those terms lightly. He was very homosexual, very Communist, and very Jewish, and he was a big promoter of drug use by young people back during the 1950s and 1960s. He was not a guru, if we intend the normal meaning for that word, which is “spiritual teacher.” Judging from what he said and wrote during his life, he never had a spiritual impulse. Nor was he a poet, if we have any reasonable definition of what constitutes poetry. Of course, he pretended to be both a guru and a poet, and the media vigorously supported his pretensions. He was simply a degenerate piece of filth. His mind was a sewer. He was a con man, who made a good living from his pretensions.
To realize the full truth of this you need to read — actually read for yourself — what Ginsberg wrote, which his media promoters call “poetry” — in fact, “great poetry.” I intended to quote a few samples myself, but I couldn’t find anything that I’m willing to repeat. His writing is almost indescribably filthy and perverted. I am not a prude, I am not sexually repressed, and I’m sure that I often say or write things which are offensive to many people. So when I tell you that there’s nothing Ginsberg wrote that I’m willing to quote, believe me, it’s pretty sick stuff.
The best I can do is to paraphrase a couple of his poems to give you an idea of their content. His best-known poem is Howl. That’s the one that attracted the attention of the big media Jews back in 1956 and resulted in their decision to promote him as a “guru” and a cultural icon for young Americans. I repeat, Tom Brokaw read the first line of Howl with a sober expression on the NBC Evening News — and without mentioning that Ginsberg was a homosexual or a Communist. The poem begins like this: “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed . . . .” That’s as far as Brokaw went, giving the average listener a very limited impression of what Ginsberg had in mind when he wrote Howl. A few lines later the poem describes homosexual couplings with motorcyclists and sailors in the most graphic possible language.
Another of Ginsberg’s better-known writings is Kaddish, which he wrote in 1961 about his mother, who had died five years earlier. He describes in revolting anatomical detail his fat, aging mother lying naked on a bed while he contemplates having sex with her, thinking maybe that’s what she wants. He also describes, in the same revolting detail, his mother vomiting into a toilet and having a bowel movement on the bathroom floor.
In 1995 Ginsberg had a collection of his poems published under the title Cosmopolitan Greetings: Poems 1986-1992. One of the poems in this collection is titled Sphincter. It’s a poem about his anus — that’s right, his anus — and the various uses it’s been put to in his homosexual activities. Very graphic. This collection was in the finals for the Pulitzer Prize in 1995.
I won’t cite any more of Ginsberg’s so-called “poetry.” But I want you to understand what it’s really like. The examples I’ve mentioned are by no means exceptional. They are typical of the sort of filthy scribbling that Ginsberg called “poetry.” They are representative. They display the infantile, narcissistic attitude that underlies liberalism. They are the barely coherent expressions of a child playing with his own feces and his own genitalia, looking for new ways to gratify himself. And that’s all that Ginsberg wrote: nothing serious, nothing except drugs, homosexual activity, degeneracy. If there is any idea that characterizes Ginsberg’s writing, it is the liberal idea that everything is relative, nothing is evil, no attitude or life-style or sexual orientation is better than any other, and the purpose of life is self-gratification.
Ginsberg is said to have launched the hippie movement of the 1960s, not to mention the “beat” movement of the preceding decade. I don’t know about that, although certainly the hippies shared a similarly infantile outlook. Ginsberg has, however, had a substantial influence on many people who grew up during the 1960s and 1970s — not as a consequence of his own efforts, but because the Jewish media establishment made the conscious decision to make him influential, to hold him up as a cultural icon. Because of this conscious effort of the Jewish media bosses, books of Ginsberg’s scatological, homosexual, drug-induced ravings are found in nearly every public and school library in the country. Ginsberg received all sorts of academic and literary awards. One book of his scribblings was given the National Book Award in 1974. He was nominated to the American Academy and the Institute of Arts and Letters. He was given a faculty position at Brooklyn College, which he still held at the time of his death. He was a favored speaker at hundreds of colleges around the country. And the media were always praising him, always taking him seriously, always holding him up as a model for young, impressionable students. Reviewers in Jewish papers like the New York Times referred to him as “America’s greatest living poet” and called his poetry “brilliant.” They used the same sort of meaningless double-talk to make fools take him seriously that the art critics use to make other fools take the hideous daubings of modern “artists” seriously. One reviewer wrote of Ginsberg’s poetry: “The Judeo-Christian dualism of good versus evil is obliterated by an oriental relativism that neatly does away with the consequences of the spiritual pride that has bloodied the pages of Western ecclesiastical history.” Another wrote that Ginsberg’s poetry is “in one of the oldest traditions, that of Hosea or the other angry minor prophets of the Bible.” Some of the literary critics claimed to see parallels between Ginsberg’s literary efforts and the mission of Jesus to redeem the world. This sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately.
Even when Ginsberg bragged in public about his pederasty or his illegal drug use, he continued to be held up as a great, creative genius, and he continued to be given awards. In 1995, just two years ago, he bragged to a newspaper interviewer, “I sleep with young boys,” but that didn’t discourage Stanford University from setting up a Ginsberg Center and buying all of Ginsberg’s personal papers, manuscripts, and so on to preserve them for posterity.
You know, Ginsberg was just a filthy, little, perverted, drug-crazed, Communist Jew. The world would be a lot cleaner place if all of his kind were swept up and buried in a deep hole somewhere. But Ginsberg, by himself, was not especially dangerous. The things he wrote were not likely to influence any healthy person. They were attractive only to sick creatures like himself.
Ginsberg, for all of his depravity, must take second place to the truly evil and destructive creatures who promoted him, who decided to make an icon of him, and who still praise him. Ginsberg became dangerous only after the big Jews, the media bosses, decided to use him as a weapon against White society and began promoting him. But even the Jewish media bosses are what they are. Everything they do is destructive to us. It is in their nature.
The ones we ought to save our anger for are the traitors among our own people who collaborated with the media bosses in promoting Ginsberg. I would sooner shoot the president of Stanford University for going along with the idea of a Ginsberg Center, or shoot Tom Brokaw for collaborating in the postmortem elevation of Ginsberg to sainthood, than I would shoot Ginsberg himself. Every newspaper writer who praised Ginsberg’s trash, every newspaper editor who allowed the praise to be published in his paper, every university librarian who eagerly recommended Ginsberg’s filth, every literary reviewer who treated Ginsberg seriously — every one of them has done inestimable damage to our people.
For 40 years university students have been told by Jewish literature professors — and by trendy, collaborating professors from our own people — that Ginsberg was a genius, that his poetry was “brilliant” and showed great “sensitivity,” that Ginsberg had great literary creativity. The students not only heard this from their professors, they read the same thing from the literary reviewers, and they heard various Hollywood figures refer adoringly to Ginsberg. And you know, a lot of our university students may have high IQs, but they really aren’t very smart, if you understand what I mean. They haven’t learned to look beneath the surface for truth. They believed their Jewish professors. They believed the reviewers.
So we’ve had two generations of literature students graduating from our universities who believe that Kaddish and Sphincter and Howl are great poetry, that Ginsberg had a great, creative soul, and that his filth is something to be imitated. And that’s what our people have been trying to do: not only to imitate Ginsberg’s scribblings, believing them to be art, but also trying to imitate his life-style, believing it to belong to a nobler and more saintly way of life than that of our own people. How many thousands of our young men and women have had their lives destroyed by these false beliefs? This is the way the Jews destroy a culture, destroy a society, destroy a people.
I’ve talked about these things before, and I guess that too often they sounded theoretical, and I’m sure that many of you didn’t really take it to heart when I told you that it is in the nature of the Jew to try to destroy any non-Jewish people with whom he is in contact.
Allen Ginsberg is a splendid illustration of the truth of what I have been telling you. Go to any large library and do two things. Sit down and read for yourself what Ginsberg wrote. Read his so-called poetry for yourself, since I do not want to quote it. Then, read what the reviewers have had to say about Ginsberg. There’s a lot of that in the periodicals in connection with his death. And every large library has not only books by Ginsberg but also books about him. Read how he has been praised and is still being praised. And think about the fact that this is the image of Ginsberg presented to American university students today.
Ginsberg’s filth is what is presented to our young people as a sublime example of literary creativity. Ginsberg is presented as a sensitive genius. Think about it. Perhaps then you will share my view about what ought to be done to Tom Brokaw and the president of Stanford University. Perhaps then you will understand the urgency of our task to take the mass media away from the Jews.
I’ve also talked before about the nature of liberalism and about the roots of this spiritual disease. I’ve told you that liberalism is narcissistic and infantile, that it is an arrested state of emotional and spiritual development. And perhaps my words seemed too theoretical, not concrete enough. Allen Ginsberg is a wonderfully concrete example. Read Ginsberg and you will understand the meaning of narcissism. And contemplate the way in which liberals have responded to Ginsberg. A liberal is a person who when he or she was very young was oriented toward making mud-pies with his own feces and playing with his genitalia and never developed emotionally beyond this stage when he grew up. Now, that is a very crude and simplistic statement, and in the case of many individual liberals it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true for all liberals, a sense in which it expresses the essence of liberalism. Allen Ginsberg and his relationship with the liberal establishment are the proof of that.
Occasionally I’ve talked about homosexuality on these broadcasts, but I haven’t gotten into the subject in depth because it’s such an unpleasant one. And more than that, it’s difficult to convey my full meaning when I say that homosexuality is something which should be abhorrent to every spiritually healthy person. There is a tendency on the part of many well-meaning persons — not liberals, but persons who are a bit naive and a bit too trusting — to be taken in by the campaign of the Jewish media and our current government and the liberal establishment to portray homosexuals as essentially normal people who just happen to have a different sexual orientation. The fact is that homosexuality is a disease of the soul. There is no such thing as a “normal” homosexual. Homosexuality colors a person’s entire outlook, his entire attitude toward life, toward himself and the world around him. Many homosexuals are pretty skillful at covering this up, at pretending to be just like everyone else except in the privacy of their bedrooms. But they aren’t like healthy people at all, either in the bedroom or out of the bedroom. They are sick and tortured souls. They are truly depraved. If you want to understand what I mean by that, read Ginsberg.
Read Ginsberg and you will understand why homosexuals should not be in our armed forces. You will understand why they always have been regarded as security risks — and, believe me, it’s not just because they can be blackmailed. Ginsberg’s poetry will help you to understand why homosexuals should not be tolerated in our society, why they should not be permitted to teach or to have any position of influence over others.
I feel a bit sheepish in telling you to read Ginsberg. I don’t want to be seen as a promoter of his filth. And I don’t tell you to read him because I want to titillate you, as if I were telling you, “Hey, look at this really raunchy inscription I found on the men’s room wall.” The reason you need to know about Ginsberg and about his promoters is so that you will understand that there is evil in our midst. Too many of us, in our sheltered, middle-class lives, don’t understand that. But indeed, there are evil men among us, men who intend to destroy us and everything that we have created. We must not try to hide from these men and hope that they will go away if we don’t provoke them. When we send our sons and daughters off to college, we send them into the arms of these evil men. When we let our children watch television, we hand them over to these evil men.
We must not try to hide from them. We must stand up and oppose them. We must understand that if we do not destroy them, they will destroy everything that is noble and decent and beautiful and good on this earth, because that is their nature.
* * *
Source: Free Speech magazine, June 1997