WE RECENTLY took a survey of just under a thousand regular listeners to American Dissident Voices who also subscribe to the texts of the broadcasts by e-mail. We wanted to know what listeners especially like or dislike about these broadcasts. We wanted ideas which will help us do a better job of reaching and moving as many people as possible. We were gratified by the many compliments and expressions of appreciation we received from listeners. It’s nice to know that our efforts are being well received by so many thoughtful people.
We also appreciated the criticisms and suggestions for improvement made by listeners. The most frequent criticism we had was that I talk too much about Bill Clinton. One listener told me that everyone already knows that all politicians are lower than scum, and it doesn’t do a bit of good to prove that to them over and over again by using Bill Clinton as an example. Another listener said it makes him depressed and sick to his stomach every time he hears Clinton’s name, and he’d appreciate my talking about more positive things, such as the AIDS epidemic or the “Holocaust.” A third listener said that he doesn’t want to hear any more about Clinton’s zipper problem; he wants to know what can be done about Clinton’s breathing problem.
Well, I can sympathize with the people who are tired of hearing about Clinton, but I don’t agree that it does no good to continue talking about him. I believe that we would be overly optimistic to assume that everyone already understands what dirt balls politicians are. I’m afraid that many people haven’t figured that out yet, although probably those same people also don’t have a long enough attention span to listen to an American Dissident Voices broadcast from beginning to end — so perhaps detailing Clinton’s problems doesn’t really help them see anything more clearly.
But you know, I don’t really talk about Clinton’s problems to persuade people that he personally is a nogoodnik. I do believe that practically everyone who listens to this program already understands that. I believe that we have among our listeners very few people who give Clinton a high approval rating. But I also believe that Clinton can provide us with many very persuasive lessons about the system which put him into the White House. There are many people of reasonable intelligence and good will — even many patriots — who despise Clinton personally and also despise his policies, but who still have faith in the system which made Clinton President. I think that an exposition of the Clinton phenomenon can help to illuminate these people. Clinton provides for us, after all, such a wonderfully extreme example of what can go wrong with a society and with a system of government.
If in 1982, for example, I had described a man like Clinton to you and told you that in ten years we’d have such a man in the White House and he’d have an approval rating from the public higher than any other President has had since we started taking such polls, you’d have thought me crazy. You’d have laughed at me and told me it couldn’t happen. So it is useful for us, I believe, to note that it has happened, and to try to understand how it happened, to try to understand what has gone wrong with us and with the system of government under which we live.
We will need to convince a lot of Americans who already despise Clinton that we must do much more than simply get rid of him and his crowd of Jews and feminists and 1960s-style whiners and liberals. We will need to convince Americans that the system itself is profoundly flawed and needs to be fixed in a radical way, in a fundamental way.
Anyway, I’m sorry, but I just cannot avoid talking more about Clinton. He is like the Rosetta Stone to an understanding of what’s wrong with democracy; he’s a gold mine for anyone looking for ammunition to use against this system. Just before a Federal court in Arkansas blocked Paula Jones’s lawsuit last week, two more rapees had surfaced from Clinton’s days as attorney general of Arkansas, one of whom apparently was paid to sign a statement saying she hadn’t been raped, and the other of whom was trying to dodge a subpoena by staying out of the country. But I will promise to focus less on the sordid details of the Clinton life-style and more on the lessons about democracy these things teach us. I really don’t intend to rehash what everyone can read in the New York Times about Clinton’s zipper problem.
Another criticism of my broadcasts by some listeners is that occasionally I become a little bloody-minded. One listener said that sometimes when I’m talking about America’s internal enemies I let my anger get the better of me and I express a “let’s hang them all” attitude toward these enemies. I’ve thought about this, and I’m inclined to agree with my critics. There’s no point in talking about vengeance or punishment at this point in our struggle. It’s counterproductive, and it’s a sign of weakness on my part when I let my anger influence what I say. I’ll try harder to overcome this weakness in the future.
At the same time I should mention that I’m a little disappointed when I’m talking with another person about what’s been done to our people and I don’t see any sign of anger or passion in that person. Anger is an appropriate response to our situation. It only becomes inappropriate when it clouds our reason and hinders the effectiveness of our response to our enemies. We need to remain level-headed and calm; we need to let reason rather than anger control our tongues and guide our planning; but deep inside there should be a white-hot anger driving us.
So I cannot promise not to be angry, but I do promise to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me to say foolish things. And it is foolish to talk about hanging America’s internal enemies at a time when we are in no position to punish anyone. I’ll not speak of punishment or vengeance again, until that position changes.
But you know, there’s another aspect of this criticism of my bloody-mindedness. Sometimes I look ahead a bit to where the government’s policies are taking us, and I see some horrible and bloody things coming, and I have a feeling that some listeners would prefer not to hear about these things. They become uncomfortable or frightened when I speak of domestic terrorism or the breakdown of civil order in the United States and the death and suffering of many White Americans. I suspect that 200 years ago, just after the French Revolution, the French population of Haiti didn’t want to hear what some of their more realistic members warned them was coming as a result of extending liberty, equality, and fraternity to their Black plantation workers.
Anyway, it’s not really bloody-mindedness that compels me to talk about these unpleasant prospects from time to time. It is my sense of responsibility to you. Americans who believe that they can elect or even tolerate governments like the one we have in Washington now and continue to be safe and secure indefinitely simply are not living in the real world. People who believe that eternal vigilance is too high a price to pay for their liberty inevitably will end up paying a much higher price, and they very well may pay it in vain. I believe that people need to be told this, whether they want to hear it or not.
The real world is not like it appears on television, where everything somehow works out all right in the end. In the real world when people abdicate their responsibilities, they pay the price, very often in blood. When governments fall into the hands of criminals, the citizens ultimately will suffer. When the owners of a country become soft and lazy and open their borders to hungry aliens, they will be eaten alive. A lot of listeners, especially those who live in our larger cities and so will be least able to protect themselves when the unpleasantness comes, might prefer not to think about it, but they really should. And I will continue to remind them of that.
One of the questions on our survey asked listeners which program they found most interesting. There were a number of favorites, but the easy winner was the program I did two months ago on the sinking of the German passenger liner Wilhelm Gustloff in January 1945, with the loss of more than 7,000 lives. Too often in the past I’ve heard from people that I shouldn’t talk about the Second World War. It makes people uncomfortable to be told that we fought on the wrong side in the war. A lot of older veterans, in particular, don’t like to hear that. But I talk about subjects like the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff and the rape of the women of Monte Cassino, which was one of my programs last year, even if they do make some people uncomfortable, because there is hardly any part of our history that it behooves us more to understand than the history of the Second World War. That was a watershed era. It was the time when our enemies really established their death-grip on America. It was the time when we were tricked into committing — and assisting in the commission of — the most horrible atrocities of the modern era, atrocities against our own race. Our participation in the Second World War was an act of national and racial suicide. The policies that are destroying America today grew directly out of that war.
The popularity of the program on the Wilhelm Gustloff pleases me, because it suggests that the prejudice against talking frankly about the Second World War may be dying, and in the future more Americans may be willing to listen to the truth about that war. In any case, I intend to have more programs dealing with various aspects of the war.
You know, there are some very important subjects which I’ve discussed from a viewpoint which is considered taboo in polite society or respectable society, even by people who are not liberals and who will agree with me on less “sensitive” or less taboo-ridden matters. My viewpoint on the Second World War is an example. So is my viewpoint on racial matters. Both viewpoints are taboo, socially forbidden. People who will agree with me about who committed the mass murders of Polish leaders and intellectuals in the Katyn forest in 1940 or who will agree with me about the horrible atrocities committed against the German people or the Baltic people by the Communists or who will agree with me on nearly every other material and moral issue of the war will gasp and turn pale when I conclude that we fought on the wrong side. One simply cannot come to such a conclusion and remain a member in good standing of the country club. Our enemies have invested so much effort in blackening that point of view, in brainwashing our people against it, that people who are taboo-conscious simply cannot overcome it. People who are able to take small steps which are Politically Incorrect simply cannot take such a large step. Their friends would shun them if they did, and they wouldn’t be invited to the “right” parties again.
Likewise, many people who will agree with me on most details of the racial problem run into a similar taboo when it comes to drawing conclusions as to what we must do about the racial problem. If what I propose to do in order to safeguard the future of our race seems unfair to other races or entails some violence, these taboo-bound people can’t deal with it. At a polite dinner party they will discuss the wrongness of affirmative action with me or racial differences in intelligence or the damage that racial integration has done to our society, but if I point out that the only way to deal with the racial problem is total, geographical racial separation by whatever means are necessary, they will strangle on their hors d’oeuvres. Too big a taboo.
Some listeners have advised me to be a bit more cautious about running afoul of these taboos: if otherwise sympathetic listeners can’t deal with it, then I shouldn’t say it, they advise. And perhaps that makes sense in some cases. But you know, I’ve got a pretty stubborn streak in me when it comes to dealing with the truth. It’s very, very seldom that I’m willing to suppress a truth or to leave an important truth unstated because of a taboo. I am by nature just not much of a politician or a diplomat or a lawyer. I don’t want to alienate otherwise good people, of course, but I’m inclined to believe that the time is getting a bit late to do anything other than deal forthrightly with the urgent matters facing us, taboo or not. I am sure that many people will prefer to remain polite, but I’m inclined to get down and dirty. And ultimately I believe that’s the only way we can win.
After the criticism that I spend too much time talking about Clinton, the next most frequent criticism which came from the survey is that I don’t provide solutions to the problems I present. “You tell us what’s wrong with the system,” many listeners complained, “but you don’t tell us how to fix it. You don’t tell us what to do about it.”
Well, actually, on a number of broadcasts I have said that what we must do now is build understanding. Ultimately, in order to fix things we need a total revolution. We need to weed out the people who have deceived and betrayed and exploited us, and we need to completely redesign and rebuild the system and the institutions which have been corrupted and used against us. We need to build a new system which will not so easily fall prey to the abuses which have taken over the present system.
Before we can have a successful revolution, however, we must build understanding among our people. We must have a substantial portion of our people in agreement with us that the continuation of the present system is intolerable and will lead us into chaos and disaster. We must have agreement that a revolution is necessary — and then there will be a revolution. But understanding and agreement must come first. We must not act blindly or foolishly or prematurely.
And therefore, my own efforts have been directed toward building understanding, and I have suggested that you can help with these efforts at building understanding. I’ve said that often, but perhaps I haven’t been concrete enough or specific enough. So now I’ll try to remedy that shortcoming. I’ll try to be a lot more specific and concrete in answering the question, “What can we do about the lunacy which is wrecking our country, derailing our civilization, and threatening our race with extinction? What can we do to get the inmates back into their cages and put the keepers in control of the asylum again?”
The very general answer I have given in the past has been, “build understanding.” But specifically, what I am doing in that direction is broadcasting 12 times each week, on 10 different radio stations in the United States. One of these stations reaches the whole world via shortwave twice each week. The other stations reach local audiences in about a dozen states through the AM and FM broadcast bands. That’s not much compared with what it could be and what it should be, but it’s a beginning. I’m reaching a growing audience, both directly by radio and also through the Internet, where my programs can be heard too. I don’t know how many radio listeners we have at this time, but about 12,000 people each day are checking into our Internet sites. That number, by the way, is up about 75% from what it was a year ago.
So specifically, that is one of the things I am doing to build understanding. I know that it is having some effect in that direction, just because the listenership is growing, and so are the responses. Now, I have said that you can help with this effort. Specifically, there are several ways in which you can help. You can send money. It costs to put this program on the air. The more money listeners send, the more broadcasts we can make each week, and the more people we can reach. If you can send money, then you should do it. You shouldn’t assume that you don’t have to because the other listeners will.
And there also are other things you can do to help me build understanding. Instead of listening to these programs by yourself and keeping them a secret, you can tell other people about them and you can get other people to listen with you. Use every medium you can to help new listeners find us. Mention this program, with the time and frequency, on radio talk shows. Mention it in letters to the editor of your local newspaper.
And if you really want to help on a continuing and regular basis — if you want to be involved in a program of very specific things you can do to help me build understanding, then you can become a member of the National Alliance. You’ll find information about the work of the Alliance and a membership application form at either of our Internet sites, or you can write me and I’ll send you the information and the form.
* * *
Source: American Dissident Voices broadcast, April 11th, 1998