🚀 go-pugleaf

"RebBiker" <RebBiker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t9hrjtgbqi6hlhjto8jlnvb4n06u5pp5km@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.natvan.com/
>
>
> American Dissident Voices Broadcast of June 30, 2001
>
> Mike Wallace's Lesson
> By Dr. William Pierce
>
> Hello!
>
> Last week I was on the CBS program 60 Minutes II, with Mike Wallace. I
> also was on 60 Minutes five years ago, and both times I came away with
> the same feeling of unreality, the feeling that I had just been
> talking
> to an alien from Mars instead of to another person whose views are
> different from my own. Mike Wallace and I were on such different
> wavelengths in both interviews that there simply was no connection
> between us. He was doing his part of the interviews, and I was doing
> my
> part, but we weren't communicating with each other at all. That's what
> I
> want to talk about with you today.
>
> If you saw the 60 Minutes II interview last week this will be easier
> for
> you, but I'll try to make things clear even to those who didn't see
> the
> interview. Mike Wallace and I talked about various things in last
> week's
> interview. We talked about my music company, Resistance Records; we
> talked about the Oklahoma City bombing and who was responsible for it;
> we even talked about the role of the Jews in destroying American
> society; and of course, we agreed on nothing. I tried my best to be
> civil throughout the interview, however, and I believe that I
> succeeded
> in that. Looking at the interview objectively, I was polite, and I
> expressed myself in a reasonable and calm manner. The principal thing
> I
> expressed in last week's interview was my concern about the increasing
> alienation of our young people, about the alienating influences in our
> society -- influences such as MTV, which is part of the same Jewish
> media conglomerate for which Mike Wallace works. I pointed out that my
> own efforts were aimed at countering these alienating influences and
> helping our young people find their roots.
>
>  Mike Wallace's reaction to me was that I was expressing "hatred" and
> that my "mouthings" are "vile" to him, as a Jew. To him my concern for
> my people, for their welfare and their survival, are "hatred" and are
> "vile." I find it remarkable that he should express himself so
> forthrightly in front of the huge television audience that we had,
> that
> he should make so clear the profound difference between my aims, as a
> White American, and his aims, as a Jew -- and in the interview last
> week
> he explicitly identified himself as a Jew. One might have expected him
> to have said the things he said if the television audience were
> entirely
> or even mostly Jewish. But of course, it's not. Jews make up only two
> and a half per cent of the U.S. population and probably about the same
> percentage of the people who were tuned to 60 Minutes II last week.
>
> Mike Wallace is a Jew, with the very special biases and viewpoints
> Jews
> have, but he also is a very experienced showman. He has been doing 60
> Minutes interviews for many years, and he certainly should be aware of
> the makeup of his audience. During both his interviews with me was
> assuming that most Americans agree with him: that most Americans
> believe
> that to express concern for the alienation of our young people is
> "hatred." He was assuming that any expression of disagreement with the
> policies of his boss, Sumner Redstone, who is using MTV to popularize
> "rap" and other elements of Black culture among young Whites and to
> encourage young White girls to have sex with Blacks -- he was assuming
> that my expression of disagreement with these policies is "vile" to
> the
> American people, to the television audience. In fact, Mike Wallace
> went
> so far as to say that I'm insane for having the views that I have. In
> the interview five years ago he actually called me a "nut" on the air,
> and in last week's interview he had one of his cohorts, Morris Dees of
> the Southern Poverty Law Center, come on the air and tell everyone
> that
> I'm crazy for believing what I believe.
>
> Now, if I had no contact with the American public besides television,
> I
> might be worried that Mike Wallace is right, and that my views are
> vile
> to most Americans, and that maybe I am crazy for expressing vile views
> in public. But I do have other ways of knowing what people are
> thinking
> besides watching television. Unfortunately, however, that's not the
> case
> with most Americans. Most Americans learn what the public is thinking
> by
> watching television. On their TV screens they see reporters stopping
> people on the sidewalk and asking them what they think about some
> current event or some government policy, and they believe they're
> getting a genuine sampling of public opinion, whereas in many cases
> they're not.
>
> I can go out with a cameraman and do 20 sidewalk interviews. Then when
> I
> get back to my studio I can select the three which express the opinion
> I
> want the public to believe is the majority opinion and discard the 17
> which express contrary opinions. Or if I want to be a bit more subtle
> in
> my deception, I can save one of the contrary opinions and put it with
> the three which say what I want the public to believe, making it look
> as
> if 75 per cent of the public have the approved opinion -- that is,
> three
> out of four -- instead of the 15 per cent -- that is, the three out of
> 20 -- which actually expressed that opinion. Most people want to have
> whatever opinions they believe most other people have. They don't want
> to have unpopular opinions. They are afraid of being considered odd or
> different or out of step with everyone else.
>
> That's why skewing the reporting of exit polls can influence the
> outcome
> of an election. If the TV reporters tell you early on election day,
> shortly after the polls have opened, "It looks like Tweedledee is
> winning by a landslide; nine out of ten voters leaving the polls are
> saying they voted for Tweedledee" -- if the reporter tells you that,
> and
> if you are an average person who hadn't really made up his mind yet,
> when you go to vote later that day you're more likely to vote for
> Tweedledee than if you hadn't already been told that most other people
> are voting for him. Even if you'd been leaning toward Tweedledum, you
> might change your mind and vote for Tweedledee instead, just to be on
> the winning side.
>
> Even more effective in deceiving the public as to what other people
> are
> thinking is television entertainment. If a leading character -- an
> alpha
> character -- in a TV show expresses an opinion, and the other
> characters
> agree with him or praise him for his opinion, you are inclined to
> assign
> weight to that opinion. You are persuaded at a subconscious level that
> if you express that opinion yourself, you will gain approval from
> those
> around you. And if a character with low esteem expresses an opinion
> and
> is then ridiculed or criticized by the other characters for expressing
> that opinion, you will be persuaded that the opinion is an unpopular
> one, whether it actually is or not, and you will be less likely to
> express it yourself.
>
> Is that the sort of thing Mike Wallace was trying to do when he called
> me a "hater" and a "nut" and said that my views are "vile"?
>
> What do you think?
>
> I think that is exactly what he was trying to do. And I'm sure that he
> succeeded with some of the people watching 60 Minutes II last week --
> though with fewer members of the audience than five years ago, when I
> had my earlier interview with him. I say that because I have other
> ways
> of sampling public opinion than listening to what Mike Wallace says
> about it. For example, I mentioned last week that I was on Bob Grant's
> radio talk show in New York recently, and that three quarters of the
> callers agreed with me. I was surprised at that response myself,
> especially in New York.
>
> Of course, seven or eight callers to the Bob Grant Show aren't
> sufficient for convincing statistics, but I've seen a number of other
> indications that the public is not quite as willing to march in
> ideological lockstep with Mike Wallace and Morris Dees as it was five
> years ago. On 60 Minutes II last week Wallace's buddy Dees estimated
> that perhaps two tenths of one percent of the public is out of step.
> That may have been true five years ago, but the actual figure today is
> more than ten times that: somewhere between two and five percent of
> the
> adult White population. Actually, White Americans are getting off the
> bandwagon of Political Correctness in droves.
>
> I receive hundreds of letters every week from listeners, and dozens of
> those letters come from people who had been Politically Correct,
> people
> who had been willing to accept as true whatever lies were told them by
> Mike Wallace or Morris Dees or any other Politically Correct authority
> figures. They had believed the television image of the world and had
> tried to conform themselves to it, but no longer. They no longer
> believe
> the television lies; they no longer try to conform their ideas to the
> false image of public opinion presented by Mike Wallace and the rest.
> They have seen too many contradictions, too much evidence that the
> world
> isn't really the way their television tells them it is.
>
> Of course, they should have seen that five years ago, ten years ago,
> 20
> years ago. Television always has lied to us, presented to us a
> deliberately falsified image of the world and of public opinion.
> Television since its beginning in the 1950s has been solidly under
> Jewish control and has been used to promote a false image designed to
> benefit Jewish interests. From the beginning the American television
> audience has been told that all races are equal, that mixing of the
> races is good, and that anyone who disagrees is a "hater." The public,
> persuaded by television that everyone except a few despicable "haters"
> believed these things, tried hard to believe them itself. Most people
> tried to ignore the contradictions; they tried to ignore the evidence
> that the policies being promoted by the media and forced on them by
> the
> government were destroying their society. They tried to pretend that
> everything was getting better and better, that all the changes being
> promoted by the media and the government were "progress."
>
> As the contradictions mounted, however, pretending became more and
> more
> difficult for many people. The real lemmings were still able to
> believe
> the image of the world they saw on their television screens and to
> ignore everything which contradicted that image, but the thinking
> minority gradually began to fall out of step. They saw on the one hand
> Bill Clinton's disgusting behavior in office, and on the other hand
> the
> media still treating him like a national leader and the majority of
> the
> public still willing to vote for him, and the thinking minority began
> to
> balk.
>
> They had seen the Persian Gulf war on television and had asked
> themselves, "Is this war really necessary?" But they had been willing
> to
> go along with the crowd and not question the assurances they received
> from their television screens that the war really was necessary and
> good, and some of them even cheered along with the lemmings when
> Baghdad
> was bombed. But then a few years later when Madeleine Albright and
> Bill
> Clinton began bombing Belgrade and killing thousands of Serb civilians
> in order to force Serbia into submission to the New World Order the
> way
> Iraq had been forced into submission, and the media assured them that
> this new war also was necessary and good, they balked. The lemmings
> continued to cheer, but more and more of the thinking portion of the
> public fell out of step with them.
>
> They had believed all of the "Holocaust" stories they had seen on
> their
> television screens in the 1970s and the 1980s, but in the 1990s, as
> the
> Jews more and more blatantly began demanding "reparations" from
> everyone
> in sight and the media supported every Jewish demand, they began to
> ask
> questions: Does the world really owe the Jews a living? Are the Jews
> really the only deserving victims of the Second World War? Why is it
> that the Jews are the only ones to receive reparations? What about all
> of the victims of the communists before, during, and after the war?
> Why
> don't we ever hear about them? Is someone trying to cover something
> up?
> Are the Jews really the innocent victims they claim to be?
>
> Even the thinking minority had accepted the television portrayal of
> race
> relations. Blacks were basically good people who deserved to be
> integrated into White society, where they would be able to contribute
> much to the benefit of everyone, and we all would live happily
> together
> forever after. The only people who opposed the multiculturalizing of
> our
> society were violent, ignorant, White rednecks -- truly despicable
> people who spent their time bombing Black churches and dragging Blacks
> behind their pickup trucks. They overlooked the Black crime rate and
> the
> Black rioting and burning of American cities in the 1960s and accepted
> the media explanation of these things as justified expressions of
> Black
> anger provoked by White racism. But as White society bent over
> backwards
> further and further to give advantages to Blacks -- Affirmative Action
> in hiring and promotions; special quotas and lowered standards for
> admission to universities, and special scholarships and other aid
> after
> they were in -- and as it became clear that none of this favoritism
> was
> improving Black performance or Black behavior, thinking Whites began
> to
> wonder where it was all headed.
>
> It took a while for the thinking minority of the White public to begin
> figuring things out because the mass media did everything possible to
> keep them confused, but gradually they began to notice things and put
> things together. They saw what happened to their neighborhoods when
> Blacks moved in. They saw what happened to their schools as the Black
> enrolment went up. They gradually began to see through the deceptive
> way
> in which the news media reported interracial crime, minimizing or even
> ignoring Black crimes against White victims while maximizing any White
> transgression against non-Whites.
>
> Perceptive Whites noticed the unrelenting, hateful media pressure
> against White South Africa through the 1970s and 1980s and early
> 1990s,
> always painting White South Africans as evil and oppressive, always
> pushing for boycotts and other punitive measures against South Africa,
> and always pushing for the Whites who built South Africa to turn the
> government of their country over to the Blacks there. And they noticed
> the sudden loss of interest by the media in South Africa after the
> Whites there foolishly yielded to media pressure and gave their
> country
> to the Blacks. The perceptive Whites here found out, despite the
> sudden
> loss of media interest, about the surge in Black crime in South
> Africa:
> about the rapes of White women, the murder of White farmers, the reign
> of terror over their fellow Blacks by Black witch doctors. They found
> out, despite the media, about the sinking of South Africa back into
> the
> jungle, into savagery. They noticed, despite minimal media coverage,
> the
> seizing of White farms by the Black dictator in neighboring Rhodesia,
> now called "Zimbabwe." And they remembered how the media had assured
> them, more than 20 years ago, that everything would be much better in
> Rhodesia once the Blacks were allowed to rule there.
>
> And much more recently, perceptive Whites in America have noticed the
> rioting by Blacks and Asians in England, they have noticed the rise in
> non-White crime and the attacks on Whites by non-Whites in England and
> the proliferation of Black and Asian gangs there. They have noticed
> the
> similarity between non-White behavior in America and South Africa and
> Rhodesia and England. They have noticed how this non-White behavior
> always becomes worse, not better, as the non-Whites gain political and
> economic power. They have noticed that the media always tell the same
> lies about racial conflict and make the same excuses for non-White
> behavior, no matter in what country it occurs. And they have wondered
> whether, perhaps, they are seeing a pattern which tells them something
> important about racial differences and about the motivations of the
> controlled media. They are wondering whether, perhaps, there is a
> lesson
> for them about what to expect in America if the present demographic
> trends are permitted to continue and to give us a non-White majority
> here in another few decades.
>
> And the perceptive minority of White people notice other things too.
> They notice President Bush's obsequious behavior in the presence of
> Ariel Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut, during the latter's visit to the
> White House this week. Sharon, remember, is the Jewish war criminal
> who
> deliberately provoked the current violence in Palestine last year in
> order to improve his chances of becoming Israel's prime minister. Mr.
> Bush pretends to be very concerned about restoring peace to the Middle
> East, but it is obvious that he is simply dancing to whatever tune is
> played by the Jews. Any government which welcomes a creature such as
> Sharon -- any President who hugs such a creature for the television
> cameras -- can ellicit only disgust from decent people, and there
> still
> are a few decent people left in America.
>
> There's one other thing I'm sure is noticed by perceptive Americans.
> Every time I have been interviewed by the Jewish media during the past
> six years -- not just by Mike Wallace, but by all of them -- and the
> subject of the Oklahoma City bombing has come up, the suggestion is
> made
> that the reason Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal building in
> Oklahoma
> City is that he read a novel I wrote 25 years ago, The Turner Diaries,
> in which there is a fictional bombing of the FBI headquarters in
> Washington. This happened again last week: Mike Wallace implicitly
> blamed me for the Oklahoma City bombing because Tim McVeigh had read
> my
> book. I had to point out to him what should have been obvious to every
> perceptive American that what provoked the Oklahoma City bombing was
> not
> my book but the attack by the Clinton government -- by Bill Clinton
> and
> Janet Reno -- on the Branch Davidian church in Waco, Texas, exactly
> two
> years earlier.
>
> McVeigh was outraged that the Clinton government had murdered 90
> innocent people, mostly women and children, in the completely
> unjustified attack on the church. He had traveled to Waco during the
> FBI
> siege of the church and expressed his outrage there, he had said in
> court at the time of his sentencing what his motivation was, and he
> had
> explained his motivation in detail to writers who interviewed him
> later
> in prison. But the media people, Mike Wallace and all the rest of
> them,
> always cover for the Clinton government and try to place the blame on
> me
> instead. The lemmings don't notice that, but perceptive people do.
>
> And as perceptive people notice more and more of these things, more
> and
> more of them fall out of step with Mike Wallace and Morris Dees and
> the
> whole structure of opinion control which the Jews have erected to keep
> White Americans in line and in step.
>
> And I'll tell you one thing I noticed in watching the broadcast of my
> 60
> Minutes II interview last week. I try to be objective when I view such
> things -- I try to put myself in the shoes of the average, intelligent
> member of the audience and see it as he would see it -- and my
> impression was that Mike Wallace and Morris Dees and CBS and the
> whole,
> rotten, Jewish structure of which they are part looked weak. They
> looked
> weaker and more vulnerable than I have ever seen them. When at the end
> of the interview Mike Wallace grinned his very Jewish grin and told me
> how vile my views are, he was speaking for his fellow Jews and for
> their
> liberal fellow travelers -- for the feminists and the homosexuals and
> the rest -- but he was speaking for fewer ordinary White Americans
> than
> ever before. And my impression was that that showed.
>
> Thanks for being with me again today.
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
> Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
> It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADVlist.
>
> To subscribe to ADVlist send an e-mail message to:
> ADVlist-on@NatVan.com (The subject and body of the message don't
> matter.)
>
> For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
> National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or
> http://www.natall.com
>
> ==> The National Alliance has a strict anti-spamming policy.  This
> information is intended for interested parties only and is not to be
> indiscriminately distributed via mass e-mailing or newsgroup posting.
>
> To contact us, write to:
>      National Vanguard Books
>      Attention:  ADVlist
>      P.O. Box 330
>      Hillsboro, WV  24946
>
> or e-mail:  national@NatVan.com please tell us if we can post your
> comments and if so whether you want your name or e-mail address
> given.
>
> ==>  TO BE REMOVED from ADVlist, send an e-mail message to:
> ADVlist-off@NatVan.com (The subject and body of the message don't
> matter.)
>
> (c) 2001 National Vanguard Books
>
>
> SHITSKIN NIGGERS:  To reply, insert "Muh diKKK"
> here --> **
> --
> rEB bIKER
> alt.flame.niggers FAQ WebMassa
> Winner of AFN's Most Hated Rassist Award
> FIGHT CRIME!  SHOOT BACK!
> The times, they are a'changin'...
>
> Check out the alt.flame.niggers FAQ at...
> http://www.front14.org/rebbiker/AFNFAQ.html
>
> Niggers "were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 1998".
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
>
> Niggers are four times as likely as Whites to kill their children...
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/kidsrates.txt
>    ___________________________
>          |          |            |          |
>          .           .           .         .
>        / | \      / | \        / | \      / | \
>         /\          /\           /\         /\
>       /    \      /    \       /    \     /    \