by Dr. William L. Pierce
TODAY I WANT to talk again about a growing threat to our freedom in America. In every White society, at all times, there have been people who valued freedom over comfort and security, and there have been people who valued comfort and security over freedom. Sometimes there are more of the one, and sometimes there are more of the other.
When I’ve talked about this subject in the past, I’ve characterized the freedom-lovers as masculine and the security-lovers as feminine because under natural conditions men are a bit more willing to take chances and try new things and want to keep their options open, and they also are a bit more concerned with general principles, and women are a bit more concerned with the security of home and hearth — which is not to say, of course, that even the most adventurous and principled man has no concern for security or comfort or that even the most home-oriented woman has no concern for principles. It’s just that on the average men are more freedom oriented, and women are more security-and-comfort oriented.
As times and manners change, however, the degree to which men value freedom changes. In America 226 years ago Patrick Henry proclaimed, “Give me liberty, or give me death,” and in doing so he won the general admiration of his fellows and the agreement of a majority of them. Today many Americans would question his sanity, and more would laugh or sneer at him than agree with him. Partly this change is the consequence of dysgenic immigration and breeding policies during the past century, but it is due more to permissive child-raising practices and a less masculine, less demanding social and civic environment.
And there’s another reason — a very important reason — for the devaluing of freedom in recent times, and that’s the propaganda line of the mass media. The media have worked diligently to undermine Americans’ attachment to certain specific freedoms — the freedom to keep and bear arms, for example — and at the same time have twisted and redefined the whole meaning of freedom, while cultivating a more feminine ideological climate in America. Sixty years ago Franklin Roosevelt did much to confuse the concept of freedom in the public mind by classifying comfort and security as “freedoms” and then elevating them to the status of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. He included in his enumeration of his so-called “four freedoms” freedom from want and freedom from fear, and the media bosses loved him for it.
Ever since then they have done everything they could to further twist meanings and compound the confusion, so that today the average couch potato or soccer mom can be persuaded easily that comfort — that is, “freedom from want” — and security — that is, “freedom from fear” — are indeed freedoms in the same sense as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of self-defense, and freedom from excessive governmental intrusion.
Really, I have had women — and men too — seriously defend the notion that freedom of speech needs to be balanced against comfort, in the form of freedom from feeling bad because of some “insensitive” remark by another person. These couch potato and soccer-mom types will argue, “Well, yes, we have freedom of speech, and that’s important, but we can’t have people saying or writing things that offend other people, things that hurt the feelings of other people.”
For the most part, this is just simpleminded “feel-goodism.” These soccer moms and couch potatoes just have very fuzzy notions about concepts such as freedom, and they’ve absorbed from TV the belief that there really is a “right” to feel good about oneself. Imagine where we’d be today if the Americans at Valley Forge in the winter of 1778 had believed that they had a “right” to be comfortable, and that “right” was as important as the right to be free from domination by a foreign government. In the last couple of centuries we have not only become softer physically and morally, but we’ve become a bit soft in the head as well.
But it’s not just the couch potatoes: there are smarter people out there whose notions are not fuzzy at all but who also hate and fear our ideas about freedom. The radical feminists and the militant homosexuals and many of the leaders of various racial minorities understand the precariousness of their present positions. They understand that a very comfortable and confused White society that tolerates their antics now may someday lose its patience, especially if someone explains things. They understand that they could very quickly lose all of their unnatural privileges if someone explains to the public what their behavior is doing to our society.
They begin feeling very insecure and very uncomfortable when they hear me, for example, talking against government-imposed sexual and racial quotas. When I ridicule the idea that America needs more “diversity” or more female fighter pilots or more Haitian or Mexican immigrants, they would like very much to shut me up. They are afraid that other people will listen and will begin thinking. When I say in one of my broadcasts that a society is sick unto death when its citizens are taught that there’s nothing wrong with men kissing and fondling each other in public, these people begin screeching about “hate speech” and demanding laws to keep me quiet.
And a lot of the couch potatoes and soccer moms are ready to go along with them, because they’ve been conditioned in that direction by the media and the schools — especially if they have attended a college or university. The radical feminists and the homosexuals and the non-White militants established a beachhead in the university faculties and administrations in the 1960s, and since then they have metastasized to the point where they are the arbiters of Political Correctness in nearly every university in America.
Well, all of this is bad enough — on the one hand the positions of influence in our schools and our government held by freaks of various sorts and by non-Whites and on the other hand the general softness and state of confusion of our population — but what makes it much worse and much more dangerous is the campaign by well organized and well financed Jewish pressure groups to subvert legislative bodies and law-enforcement agencies at the same time that Jews in the media are continuing to soften up the public. There is a powerful effort underway now to abolish our Bill of Rights, piece by piece, both directly and indirectly, and it is succeeding.
You know, I’ve spoken with you before about the Jewish and liberal campaign to have more so-called “hate crime” legislation enacted, at both the state and the Federal levels. That campaign continues, with groups such as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith presenting their so-called “model hate crime” bills to legislators everywhere and lobbying for their enactment. And it’s not just the Anti-Defamation League. It’s other Jewish organizations too, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and all sorts of ad hoc groups. And politicians being what they are these days, these Jewish groups are having an alarming degree of success. Legislators, who take an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, eagerly subvert the Constitution if it will win them favor with the Jews. They will enact patently unconstitutional laws without a second thought if the Anti-Defamation League will give them a pat on the head for it.
And let me assure you, even patently unconstitutional laws that should never be able to stand up in court are dangerous. In the first place, some of them do stand up in court because the courts themselves have been corrupted. But even when they aren’t enforceable they intimidate people. No person in his right mind wants to be charged even under a law that is so clearly unconstitutional that no court will uphold it, because he can be bankrupted by the legal fees involved in proving that it is unconstitutional.
At least, there are some more or less “mainstream” groups in America that are as strongly opposed as I am to the whole concept of “hate crime” laws, although for different reasons, and these groups undoubtedly have slowed down somewhat the rate at which the Constitution is being undermined. They could do much more if they weren’t so terrified of being labeled “haters” or “anti-Semites” for daring to take a Politically Incorrect position.
The Jews, however, are pushing their campaign to subvert the Constitution at more than one level. While using their media to persuade the public that everyone will be safer and more comfortable with more “hate crime” laws, and lobbying the politicians to enact the laws, at the same time they have a massive effort underway to infiltrate and subvert law-enforcement agencies. And in this last effort, which in some ways is the most dangerous of all, there are no mainstream groups opposing them.
Here’s the way it works: the media in a particular area — say, in Arizona or in Michigan — raise the public’s consciousness of the threat of terrorism. The Jews persuade one of their favorite Gentile politicians in the area to speak up about the need to be prepared to deal with this new threat. The politician gives television interviews and speaks very seriously about the lack of preparedness on the part of police and other government agencies. State and local police agencies begin to worry that they will be blamed if they don’t do something to show that they are taking the threat of terrorism seriously. As a matter of fact, terrorism is completely new to them. They’ve never thought about it much. They don’t know anything about it.
Well, guess who comes to the rescue! An official of the Anti-Defamation League or another Jewish group goes to see the head of the state police, and he brings along a member of the Israeli secret-police organization Mossad. The two Jews tell the chief of the state police that they know all about terrorism and terrorists, and they want to share their information with him, because of their humanitarian concern for public safety. The police chief is happy to accept their offer, and so training seminars are set up. The Jews tell the police officials about terrorism — and especially about terrorists, about how to spot a terrorist, about what characteristics to look for.
Usually the irony of the situation is not even realized by the Gentile policemen. The Mossad is an organization that engages in state-sponsored terrorism. It commits terrorist acts on a larger scale than any other organization, including Osama bin Laden’s group. Its agents sneak into people’s hotel rooms in other countries and plant radio-detonated bombs under their beds. They put bombs in people’s telephones. They put bombs in people’s cars. They use exotic poisons to assassinate people. A couple of Mossad agents got caught in Jordan a couple of years ago when they tried to murder an Islamic religious leader they didn’t like by squirting poison into his ear as they passed him on a sidewalk in Amman. And these professional assassins and terrorists are supposedly teaching our policemen about how to spot terrorists!
Imagine the police hiring the Mafia to teach them about organized crime and how to fight it. Do you think that perhaps the Mafia instructors might tailor their teaching to give the police only the information that wouldn’t be harmful to the Mafia? Do you think that perhaps the Mafia might try to use the police for its own ends instead of being public-spirited and really helping the police fight organized crime?
It is not surprising that what our policemen learn about terrorism and terrorists from this relationship with the Jews is a bit one-sided. It is not surprising that the police learn that terrorists are likely to be Islamic extremists — or even more likely, White racists. It is not surprising that they learn that White racists and White patriots — in fact, any groups or individuals who are not Politically Correct — should be watched carefully, because they might be terrorists, or they might become terrorists as demographic and social conditions in the country continue to worsen. People who are opposed to the flood of non-White immigrants pouring into the country, people who are opposed to continually increasing “diversity” in America, might become violent, might resort to terrorism, if the government doesn’t do something to control immigration.
Well, that’s just the beginning of this worrisome relationship between our police and the Jews. And you know, when I say “the Jews,” I don’t mean just the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Mossad. This ongoing subversion of our Constitution — this assault on our freedom — is also supported by the Jewish community, by the Jewish tribe, as a whole. The Jewish bosses of the mass media support it as well as the Jewish pressure groups.
Of course, there are individual exceptions. There are a few Jews who, for one reason or another, refuse to march in lockstep with the rest of the tribe. In an earlier program I told you about Norman Finkelstein, whose book The Holocaust Industry, exposes the chicanery and fraud of the media Jews and other Jews who have lied about and exaggerated Jewish losses during the Second World War in order to gain economic and political advantages for their fellow Jews. Despite Finkelstein’s dissent, the Holocaust fraud remains a Jewish fraud, because it is supported by nearly all Jews, not just by Simon Wiesenthal and Elie Wiesel and a few other professional Holocaust hucksters. I’ve discussed with you Robert Friedman’s revelations of the Jewishness of so-called “Russian” organized crime in his book Red Mafiya. But despite Friedman’s exposé, virtually all the Jews in the controlled media continue to pretend that the members of the organized crime gangs that came to America from the former Soviet Union are Russians instead of Jews.
And there are a few individual Jews who speak out against the campaign to enact “hate crime” and “speech crime” laws. They warn that this campaign threatens our most fundamental freedoms. Nat Hentoff, a Jew who works for the Jewish newspaper Village Voice and has a syndicated newspaper column, is one of these. Hentoff has for years spoken out against threats to free speech, and he is speaking out now against the “speech crime” campaign being pushed by his fellow Jews.
Of course, Hentoff doesn’t refer to it as a Jewish campaign, but that’s exactly what it is. I’m happy that Hentoff is at least speaking out against “speech crime” laws, but it is a fact that one cannot really understand what is going on unless one sees the campaign as Jewish and sees how it meshes with long-term Jewish goals. And one cannot effectively fight against this campaign unless one is willing to fight against the Jews as a whole.
Well, I told you that the Anti-Defamation League’s teaching of law-enforcement agencies about terrorism is just the beginning. Having established a cozy relationship with police departments around the country, Jewish organizations next put themselves forward as experts on “hate crime” legislation, which is as new and strange to most law enforcement people as terrorism is. “Hate crime” and “speech crime” are the coming things, the Jews persuade the policemen. If you want to stay on the right side of the media in the future, you’ll be spending much less time chasing robbers and rapists and instead will be arresting “hate criminals” and “speech criminals.” You’ll need to know how to recognize them. Let us teach you.
And the Jews are teaching them. In Phoenix, Arizona, the police department has a special “bias crimes detail”: an incipient thought police unit. Although the Phoenix cops do not yet have the authority to arrest people for expressing Politically Incorrect thoughts, they do keep official police records — “information cards,” they are called — on people overheard saying things that might be used later as evidence against them if they ever are charged with a “hate crime.” For example, a White man reports to the Phoenix police that he has just been mugged and robbed on the street by two illegal aliens from Mexico. While the police are taking his report he says, “I’d like to see all of these wetbacks rounded up and shot.” An “information card” reporting that remark goes into the police files. Two years later the same White man gets in a fight with a Mexican and beats him up. Has a “hate crime” been committed? The “bias crimes detail” finds the two-year-old “information card” in its files and on that basis charges the White man with a “hate crime” carrying twice the penalty that a simple assault would carry.
And Phoenix certainly isn’t the only community where the Jews have persuaded the local cops to begin collecting evidence of what people are thinking so that they can be prosecuted later. In Laguna Beach, California, Police Chief Jim Spreine encourages citizens to report to the police any “hate-style comments,” to use the chief’s words, that they overhear. People who make “hate-style comments” are more likely to commit acts of violence later and so bear watching, the chief told a reporter for the Orange County Register. And I do not need to tell you who it is that advises the chief exactly what constitutes a “hate-style comment.”
This is the sort of thing that is happening all over America at a rapidly increasing rate. The whole meaning of law enforcement is being transformed. The police used to protect normal, law-abiding citizens by locking up violent predators. Nowadays in many cities the police are doing less of that from fear of being charged with “racism” or “racial profiling,” because violent predators are disproportionately non-White. The police instead are spending their time watching, gathering information on, and in some cases arresting White men who are suspected of having Politically Incorrect attitudes and thinking Politically Incorrect thoughts.
As I told you earlier in this broadcast, there are two principal reasons for this transformation. One is the general feminization of America: the shift from a freedom-loving citizenry to a comfort-loving and security-loving citizenry. The other reason is deliberate subversion on a huge scale, in which the controlled mass media and Jewish pressure groups have played the largest role.
If America is to survive much longer its citizens must once again come to value freedom more than comfort and security. But before this shift in attitude can be effected, the grip of the Jews on the mass media and on the political process in America must be broken. And before that can happen, those Americans who still love freedom must find the courage to speak out and accuse those who are subverting their country.
Certainly, anger is growing. The rage is growing. But along with the rage must grow understanding and courage.
* * *
Source: Free Speech magazine, August 2001, Volume VII, Number 8