Why We Deserve Their Contempt
by Dr. William L. Pierce
I RECEIVE LETTERS from many people who tell me about the things that concern them — especially about the things that they believe are important and that they want me to address in one of these broadcasts. Their concerns cover a wide range. Some people tell me, “You should talk about the Freemasons. Masons are involved in every aspect of the conspiracy to destroy our civilization and impose the New World Order on us.”
Well, maybe so. I really don’t know much about Freemasonry. I do know some people who are Masons, though, and I’m quite sure that if the Masonic organizations to which they belong are engaged in some sort of sinister conspiracy, the fellows I know haven’t been let in on it. It could be that at the higher levels — 32nd degree and so on — there’s a lot of nasty stuff going on that they don’t tell the rank and file about. Certainly many men who should have been hanged, drawn, and quartered for their crimes against our people — mostly politicians of one stripe or another — are or have been Masons. But I just don’t know enough about Freemasonry to talk about it.
Other people who write to me are quite concerned about the Federal Reserve System. They tell me that it’s illegal, that there’s some sort of legal irregularity in the way the system was set up. They tell me that it’s a system designed to enrich a few bankers at the expense of everyone else. They tell me that it’s a Jewish system, and they point to the very Jewish chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan. And they tell me that the Federal Reserve System is at the root of our problems and that I should talk about it.
Well, the reason I don’t talk about the Federal Reserve System is, first, I don’t know anything about it or about banking systems in general. I’ve heard too many people talking about the Federal Reserve who also don’t know anything about it, and I don’t want to embarrass myself. Second, even if everything these Federal Reserve enthusiasts say about the Federal Reserve System being illegal and a big drain on the economy is true, I’m not convinced that it’s something I need to explain in an American Dissident Voices broadcast. Perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps someday I’ll understand it well enough and believe that it’s important enough for me to explain the problems associated with it in a clear way to everyone else.
Most of my broadcasts have been related in one way or another to the two issues that I believe are most important for us to understand and to deal with. These central issues, around which everything else revolves, are race and the Jews. We can figure out how to straighten out our banking system after we have regained control of our mass media and won the demographic battle. If we don’t win that, we’ll have no chance to deal with banking or anything else.
Of course, I do talk about other issues. For example, I’ve discussed various aspects of feminism in my broadcasts. But every time I’ve talked about feminism at any length I have pointed out that the principal promoters of this pathology have been Jews. Certainly the 1963 book by Jewess Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, was the Das Kapital of the modern feminist movement, and a great many of the other feminist writers and publicists also were Jews. More important, the feminist movement would have remained on the fringes of our society, populated mostly by lesbians, if it had not been for the enthusiastic and continuing support of the Jewish mass media, which made feminism Politically Correct on college campuses.
And I have pointed out that the reason feminism is important is not that it has made many women neurotic and has made many men as well as many women very unhappy, but that it is race-threatening. Feminism is not important because of its effects on the economy by changing the composition of the work force. It is not important because it opens up new careers for women or because it relieves men of the need to be chivalrous or protective toward women. Feminism is important for just one reason, and that reason is racial. Feminism has drastically lowered the White birthrate: it is now well below the replacement rate, and the race will die out if the birthrate is not raised once again above the replacement level. Even more immediately threatening, the White race, which is the race on which feminism has wreaked its havoc, will be swamped by the non-White races, where feminism has not taken hold. Feminism takes women out of the home and puts them in the workplace. Feminism leads women to choose careers other than motherhood. Feminism, all by itself, will destroy us unless we stamp it out the way we would an epidemic of hoof-and-mouth disease: ruthlessly and thoroughly. To summarize: feminism is a racial threat, and it has been made into a racial threat by the Jews, who have been and still are its principal promoters.
Communism is another example. There certainly are people who manage to talk about communism without mentioning either race or the Jews. Conservatives are pretty adept at that sort of thing: at dodging the real issues. The John Birch Society, for example, will tell you that communism has nothing to do with race or with the Jews; it has only to do with freedom and with private property. Many Christians will tell you that the bad thing about communism is that it is atheistic: “godless communism,” they call it, and to them that’s what is really important.
When I talk about communism, the Jews and race are central to the discussion. I talk about the Jews because they are the ones who designed and spread this plague. What would communism be without the Jew Karl Marx? How could it ever have gotten the Russian people by the throat without all the Jews who constituted the majority of Lenin’s accomplices during the revolutionary period?
Lenin himself was only a quarter Jewish, but most of the people who financed his revolutionary activities were full-blooded Jews, and so were the Bolshevik gangsters with whom he conspired: Radek, Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Sverdlov, Uritsky, and the rest. Every foreign observer who visited the Soviet Union in its early days was struck by the huge preponderance of Jews among the commissars and other Soviet leaders. Without these Jews to finance, lead, and staff the revolution, the communist movement would still be meeting in cellars and back rooms in St. Petersburg trying to figure out how to seize control of the Russian government.
And without the Jewish apologists for communism in the media in the United States and elsewhere, the Soviet Union would have expired 50 years sooner than it did. It was Jewish media influence — concealing the true nature of communism, concealing communist atrocities and portraying the Soviets in the best possible light, as heroic pioneers for social justice — that made it politically feasible for the United States and Britain to become allies of the Soviet Union in the Second World War in order to crush anti-communist Germany and then to turn half of Europe over to communist rule after the war.
Of course, there were many non-Jewish activists, leaders, and propagandists involved in the spread and rise of communism — Stalin is the most outstanding example — and most of the Jews of the world never belonged to a communist party or made a pro-communist movie or wrote an editorial for the New York Times favoring communism.
That is the smokescreen always raised by the Jews and their defenders when the issue of the Jewish involvement in communism comes up: there were many non-Jewish communists, and the majority of the Jews weren’t participants in communism. The fact remains, however, that Jews not only formulated the essence of communism — they made it what it is — but they also played an absolutely essential role in its triumph. Without the Jews, communism, like feminism, never would have gotten off the ground. That is why any discussion of communism that doesn’t mention the Jews is meaningless and can only be misleading.
And why was communism such a terrible thing? Was it because it demanded a redistribution of wealth? Was it because it threatened the incomes and property of the capitalists? Was it because it was atheistic?
Hardly. Communism was full of unworkable economic theories — unworkable because they weren’t in accord with human nature — and it put forward some really nutty ideas about history and other things. But these were not what made communism such a disaster. The evil in communism was not that it took property away from those who had earned it or inherited it and gave it to those who had not; the evil was not that it discouraged individual initiative or that it eventually made an economic basket case out of every nation on which it was imposed. The evil in communism was that it preached egalitarianism. It denied the differences in human quality among individuals and among races. Worse, it inverted the natural ranking of human beings. It appealed to the worst to bring down the best. It appealed to the resentful losers to destroy those who had been successful. It preached that the first shall be last, and the last shall be first. And it used these egalitarian teachings to justify destroying the best of our people wherever it gained the ability to do so.
It was communist egalitarianism that justified the murder of 30 million Ukrainians and Russians — the kulaks, the successful small farmers — because they resisted being herded into collectives along with the ne’er-do-wells. It was communist egalitarianism that justified the mass murder of the Polish professional and military elites, in the Katyn forest and elsewhere, in order to “equalize” the Polish nation and also justified doing the same thing in Estonia and Latvia and Lithuania when those nations fell under Soviet rule.
Communism preached that the talented and successful people, the people with character and ability, were no better than anyone else: that anyone could become a successful composer or scientist or industrialist if he were given the same education and the same advantages as those who had been successful. So if the successful people resisted being “equalized,” then nothing really was lost in killing them, because they were simply replaceable human units like everyone else. That was the evil in communism: it killed the best of our people in order to make more room for the worst. It did an enormous amount of genetic damage to our race.
And that’s the same egalitarian teaching used today to justify every sort of racially destructive policy in America, from Affirmative Action to open borders. Since Blacks are essentially the same as Whites, except that they’ve been held back by White racism, it does no racial harm to give jobs and promotions to Blacks that otherwise would have gone to Whites, say the egalitarians. It does no racial harm to boost Blacks up the socioeconomic ladder so that they can be more easily integrated into White society — and can more easily intermarry with Whites. Since European Americans are essentially the same as Mexican mestizos and Haitian Negroes, why should we exclude them from our country? Sharing our land and our wealth with them can’t possibly degrade us as a nation or weaken us in any way. What difference does it make if they outbreed us and eventually replace us? Everything will be the same, because we’re all equal. We all have the same creative potential, the same potential for building and maintaining civilization. Right?
And I hardly need to tell you that the people who are pushing the party line of racial egalitarianism in America today are the same people who covered for the communists while they were butchering the best of our people in Europe for the sake of individual and class egalitarianism. The same people are running Hollywood and television and the New York Times today who were running Hollywood and radio and the New York Times while the communists were “equalizing” Ukraine and Russia and Poland and the Baltic states before their media allies got us into the Second World War in order to keep the Germans from stamping out communism — and the people responsible for communism.
I’ll mention one other thing in this regard. A lot of people believe that the Jews pushing racial egalitarianism in America today are a kinder, gentler bunch than the Jews who were pushing communism in Europe 50, 60, or 70 years ago — Jews such as Leon Trotsky or Lazar Kaganovich or Ilya Ehrenburg or the unnamed secret police or gulag commissars, with the blood of millions of our people on their hands. It isn’t so. The Jews in America today cannot order the arrest of their enemies or potential enemies by the thousands, gloat over them while they are being tortured in the basements of police headquarters around the country, and then have them disposed of with a bullet in the back of the head the way they did in Europe. But they would like to. The Jews of Hollywood hate us with the same insane hatred that the Jewish secret police commissars had for the Polish officers and intellectuals they butchered by the thousands in the Katyn forest, with the same insane hatred that was expressed in propaganda commissar Ilya Ehrenburg’s exhortations to the Red Army to rape German women and murder German children. They don’t yet have the power to murder us wholesale the way they did in Ukraine and Estonia, but they would if they did.
Let me illustrate that. Timothy Blake Nelson is a Hollywood film director. One would never expect someone with the name Timothy Nelson to be a Jew, but in fact he is a Jew and has identified himself as such in various film-industry publications. He is the director of a new film — O as in Othello — due to be released next month by Lions Gate Films, although it actually was made by Miramax, a division of Disney. Disney is headed by the Jew Michael Eisner, and Miramax is headed by the Jewish Weinstein brothers, Bob and Harvey. The original production team at Miramax is entirely Jewish and is headed by executive producer Michael Levy. The point I am making is that everything about Nelson’s new film is Jewish.
Although O is very loosely based on the Shakespeare play, Nelson’s Othello character is not a Moor but a modern American Negro, who is incongruously named “Odin” — and, believe me, the incongruity in naming a Negro after the chief god in the Germanic pantheon is deliberate. Everything in the film is deliberate. It is a calculated outpouring of hate against everything White, everything European, everything Aryan.
O, like so many other films coming from Hollywood recently, is aimed at promoting sex between teenaged White girls and Black males. If you believe most of the pre-release reviews, it is not an anti-White film at all, but rather a film aimed at breaking down racial barriers. It is a film against White racism, a film that will help to promote racial brotherhood and racial togetherness and all the other things so beloved of liberals and Christians.
If you read what Nelson himself has to say about his film you will get a different picture, however. It is a film calculated to rub the noses of Whites — especially Southern Whites, especially upper-class Whites, especially racially conscious Whites — in their wickedness and their inferiority. The setting of the film is a high-class boarding school for wealthy White kids in Charleston, South Carolina. Nelson gloats over the way in which the school has been forced to change its policies in order to comply with the “civil rights” laws his fellow Jews have imposed on the country. He gloats even more over the way in which the White students at the school have changed.
The White male characters in the film are inferior in every way to the Black hero, who takes possession of the most beautiful White girl in the school, Desi. Although Desi has surrendered herself willingly to him, the Black ultimately subjects her to a violent rape: a symbolic playing out of Jewish hatred against the White race. I’ll read a a few selections from Nelson’s own pre-production notes for the film, in which he expresses the feelings that he wants the film to evoke. You can read the notes for yourself from the Internet at the Lions Gate Web site. And of course, you do have to read between the lines. The Jews are never straightforward in expressing themselves, but Nelson’s hatred comes through clearly enough in these pre-production notes:
First, a few words about why shooting in the South is important. Obviously, the story of Othello, and our modern version, deal with racial issues, and in no region in America is the history of racial oppression more apparent.
…I’m actually speaking more of the historical backdrop this region offers. Without populating the film with an assortment of crackers, we can give this story a specific and pointed setting. Place Odin on a distinctly antebellum campus, in a crisp school uniform, among the similarly dressed scions of former slave-owning families, and the rhetorical value is immeasurable…. Like the actress who’ll play her, Desi is not only beautiful, she’s extremely bright. She’s also got poise, wisdom, and depth, which means she’s not vulnerable to fads, nor is she indifferent to her past….
Odin is that terrific paradox: the one whom all at some level despise, but whom all, at some level, want to be. In this elite Southern academy, hip-hop language and culture abound, as kids casually appropriate the argot of places they wouldn’t be caught dead in day or night; of characters with whom they’d be terrified speaking. It is beautifully ironic that against the backdrop of antebellum architecture, and in a town in which the old slave market still stands … kids speak as they do in this film. These great grandchildren of plantation owners venerate the enraged great grandchildren of slaves, whose rhetoric, at close listening, is virulently anti-white…. Odin is born of the black underclass culture fetishised by his rich white classmates, while he simultaneously gets to mingle with those classmates as one of their own. The most beautiful girl in the school is his girlfriend. He’ll get the same diploma his classmates will; he’ll go to Duke…. Like the … classroom, the dining hall should feel as though students’ grandparents once dined there…. We want old South, so that … it shouldn’t be hard to contemplate Odin’s forebears serving the grandparents mentioned above…. With very few exceptions, these kids should seem very white, and very rich.
Well, what I quoted is just a small taste of what the Jewish director has to say about his latest anti-White propaganda film. What is clear is his obsession with race and his burning hatred for us and his contempt. And we let these people — Jews like Nelson and Eisner and the Weinstein brothers and Redstone and all the rest, with their films and their television and their advertising agencies and the rest of their media — shape the opinions and the fashions of young Whites. So paralyzed with fear of being called “anti-Semites” or “racists” are we that we let them do it. Perhaps we deserve the contempt they have for us.
* * *