🚀 go-pugleaf

"Lester E. Rees" <retselseer@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:TsSx7.1254$FY4.970037@news.uswest.net...
> American Dissident Voices Broadcast of October 13, 2001
>
> Face Crime and Anthrax
> By Dr. William Pierce
>
> Hello!
>
> Some novels are worth reading just because they're entertaining or
> exciting. Others are worth reading because we can learn something
> worthwhile from them. Occasionally a novel may even be prophetic: we can
> learn something about the future from reading it. It is a rare novel
> indeed that is both entertaining and prophetic. Such is the novel 1984,
> written in 1948 by the Englishman Eric Arthur Blair using the pen name
> George Orwell.
>
> I first read 1984 in 1955 when I was a graduate student and found it so
> fascinating that I reread it at least three times in subsequent years.
> What fascinated me about the novel was the feeling I had while reading
> it each time that it not only was prescient, that it not only was
> telling me things about the future which I felt likely to come about,
> but it also was revealing to me very fundamental things about the nature
> of people and governments: things that I had not been taught elsewhere
> because they were Politically Incorrect -- although the term
> "Politically Incorrect" had not yet been coined.
>
> Here's an example: Orwell talks about the ideological regimentation of
> the English public by the government. People were punished not only for
> doing or writing or saying something Politically Incorrect; they were
> punished for thinking Politically Incorrect thoughts: "thought crime,"
> it was called. The Thought Police were the all-powerful enforcers of
> Political Correctness. In 1984 there also was another type of crime for
> which people were punished: it was called "face crime," and a person
> committed a "face crime" if he had a Politically Incorrect expression on
> his face at any time. For example, if a person smiled when he should
> have frowned, or showed distaste or disapproval when he should have
> shown admiration, he had committed a "face crime" and could be severely
> punished.
>
> Well, that's only fiction, but in the real world a little over a decade
> ago Jewish organizations and the media began their big push to have all
> sorts of "hate crime" legislation enacted in America. "Hate crime," of
> course, is essentially "thought crime." "Hate crime" legislation
> punishes a person for what he supposedly was thinking at the time he
> committed some act. The politicians, of course, put up practically no
> resistance. The Jews demanded it, so the politicians went along with it
> and began passing the laws the Jews wanted. The Sally Soccer Moms and
> the Joe Sixpacks also thought "hate crime" laws were a good thing. Who
> wants to be in favor of hate? Outlaw it, get rid of it.
>
> I've spoken often in these broadcasts about the Orwellian nature of the
> program to enact more "hate crime" laws. It was largely in connection
> with the mindless willingness of the public to go along with this
> trashing of their most fundamental freedoms that I began using the term
> "lemming" to describe people who believe whatever they are told to
> believe by their television screens and who then adjust their attitudes
> and opinions accordingly. Orwell also clearly understood this aspect of
> human nature. He understood that most people are susceptible to thought
> control by the media and the government. He understood that no matter
> how repressive a government becomes, most people will never think of
> rebelling or even want to rebel, as long as they believe that other
> people around them approve of the government.
>
> I found this aspect of Orwell's book most interesting and also most
> profoundly depressing: his portrayal of the ease with which the thinking
> of the public can be controlled by the government and the media. Prior
> to absorbing the message of Orwell's 1984 I had had a rather idealistic
> view of people -- that is, of my people, my fellow White men and women.
> I had thought of the White public as being comprised of a mass of
> individuals, each able to think for himself and make his own decisions
> about the world around him. I had thought that if it were clear to me
> that the government is corrupt and is not serving the interests of our
> people, then all I had to do to persuade other people that the
> government does not deserve their support is show them the evidence. I
> thought that most other people could reach rational decisions about such
> matters. But when I read 1984 I had the nagging conviction that Orwell
> was right about the nature of most people, and I was wrong. Orwell's
> portrayal of people had the ring of truth.
>
> For a long time, however, I resisted accepting Orwell's view of the
> nature of the public because I didn't want to accept it. I wanted to
> keep my idealistic view of my fellow men. But eventually my own
> observations and my reason convinced me that Orwell was right, and that
> most people are, in fact, not individuals at all but are lemmings.
>
> I thought about the implications of that quite a bit, and I finally
> decided that it wasn't necessarily a bad thing. If the race had evolved
> that way, it must have been for a reason. It must have survival value.
> And, of course, it does. We are able to have stable societies only
> because most people are lemmings: only because most people think and act
> only as members of the mass, not as individuals. In a time of war, for
> example, it is essential for a community or a nation to be united in its
> thinking. That's one of the reasons that multiculturalism weakens a
> nation. That's one of the reasons I've condemned as traitors the people
> trying to keep America's borders open to the Third World, trying to
> bring more "diversity" to America. They are weakening America, damaging
> America.
>
> Anyway, lemminglike behavior was one thing before the age of television;
> it's something with quite different consequences when the powerful tool
> of television is in the hands of an alien minority with its own agenda,
> with its own interests, which in many cases are diametrically opposed to
> the interests of our own people. My own concern, all of my work, has not
> been to change the nature or the behavior of our people; it has been to
> liberate them from the destructive influences that take advantage of our
> people and manipulate them in ways opposed to their own interests.
> That's why I've focused so much on the all-important fact of Jewish
> media control.
>
> Back to Orwell's 1984 and its all too prophetic descriptions of a
> government enforcing laws against "thought crime," and the people going
> along with this sort of ideological regimentation without complaint.
> Remember Orwell's description of "face crime"? I have on my desk a news
> report from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last week. It's about an
> 11-year-old fifth grader at a St. Louis-area school who was suspended
> from school last week for smiling inappropriately. The news story is
> headed, and I quote, "School suspends boy who drew picture of attack,
> then grinned while showing it."
>
> The boy's class had been given the assignment of writing about the
> September 11 attack. The boy drew a sketch of the twin towers of the
> World Trade Center with flames and smoke coming from the upper floors.
> The principal of the boy's school asked to see the drawing. The boy,
> Paul Volz, showed it to the principal and smiled. The principal
> suspended Paul form school and sent him home with a note. The note to
> Paul's father from the principal, Jeff Boyer, read, and I quote: "When I
> asked him why he did this, he just looked at me and smiled. This is
> totally inappropriate, and Paul's behavior has to change." -- end of
> quote --
>
> Paul's father complained to the newspaper, and a reporter tried to
> contact the principal, but the principal refused to return his call. The
> reporter then contacted a spokesman for the school district, Ben Heit.
> Heit told the reporter that it was Paul's smile, not the drawing itself,
> that brought the suspension. All of this is in the St. Louis
> Post-Dispatch of October 4.
>
> Think about this story for a minute. I believe that most of us think of
> the attack on the World Trade Center as a very serious matter.
> Certainly, 6,000 people being killed is not a laughing matter for most
> of us. Paul Volz's smiling about the picture he drew may very well have
> indicated that the 11-year-old boy didn't take the attack seriously. But
> you know, in America, we used to be free to make up our own minds about
> what we would take seriously and what we wouldn't. When a neighbor -- or
> an 11-year-old kid -- didn't agree with us about what should be smiled
> at and what shouldn't, that was nobody's business but his. We couldn't
> sic the FBI on him -- or suspend him from school. It's clear that Paul's
> principal believes that that view of things is old-fashioned. He
> believes that the time has come when it is appropriate to punish people
> for "face crimes."
>
> My concern is that many Sally Soccer Moms and Joe Sixpacks feel the same
> way about it that Principal Jeff Boyer does. In this case I suspect that
> the war hysteria being drummed up by the media emboldened the principal
> to act as he did. I'm concerned that before this war is over, people
> like Principal Boyer, with an Orwellian Thought Police mentality, will
> use the war to justify many more 1984-style curtailments of our freedom.
> The media bosses have been preaching for years that the First Amendment
> was never meant to protect "offensive speech" or speech that hurts other
> people's feelings: "hate speech" they call it. And there are literally
> millions of American voters who have let themselves be persuaded to go
> along with that view. Who needs "hate speech"? they think. It just hurts
> people's feelings and stirs people up against other people. Who wants to
> be in favor of speech that hurts people's feelings? Outlaw it, get rid
> of it. And what better time for the media bosses and their political
> lackeys in the government to push for new "speech crime" laws than when
> America is at war? All Americans need to be united now, they say. We
> need to pull together. We must not have people saying things that divide
> us. That only serves the purpose of the enemy. So let's outlaw "hate
> speech" now. And at the same time they carry on this campaign to destroy
> our most basic freedoms they tell us we need to wage war against the
> enemies of our "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East. I'll bet
> they're really laughing up their sleeves about that.
>
> And really, don't they have a right to laugh at us, to feel contempt for
> us? They use our democracy -- that is, our electoral system, in which
> the lemmings whose opinions they control through their television are
> used to put their approved politicians into public office -- they use
> our democracy to take away our freedom, and they use our people to help
> them do it. And they facilitate the whole process by getting us to fight
> a war against their enemies in the Middle East, telling us that it's a
> war to safeguard our "freedom and democracy." Wise men, such as George
> Orwell, warned us about this sort of thing more than 50 years ago, but
> if we judge by people like Principal Jeff Boyer and school board
> official Ben Heit, the warnings haven't helped much.
>
> Clear indications of the contempt they feel for us and of their
> confidence in their ability to continue manipulating us for their own
> purposes are visible in many places, but probably nowhere more than in
> Israel itself. There's been a lot of discussion among the Israeli
> politicians in the Knesset during recent weeks about how to take the
> best advantage of the September 11 attack on New York and Washington.
> The Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, is all in favor of carrying
> out a massive program of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians while
> the Americans are preoccupied with annihilating the Jews' other enemies
> in the Middle East. Simon Perez, a former prime minister and currently
> Israel's foreign minister, favors a more cautious policy -- at least, in
> public he favors caution.
>
> The discussion between Sharon and Perez is almost like a bad cop, good
> cop routine. Sharon is a certified war criminal, a professional
> terrorist with a record much longer than that of Osama bin Laden, and a
> mass murderer, who is currently defying the efforts of an international
> war crimes tribunal in Brussels to put him on trial for organizing the
> butchery of Palestinian women and children in the Sabra and Chatila
> refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982. His principal constituency among
> Israeli Jews is the raving-mad Orthodox element and the Jewish settlers
> in the so-called "occupied territories." Perez, a member of the Labor
> Party, appeals more to the rootless, cosmopolitan, pseudo-liberal Jewish
> element and pretends to be in favor of the badly misnamed "peace
> process."
>
> Deception, of course, characterizes everything the Israelis do publicly.
> Privately, the Jews in both the Sharon and the Perez camps are
> enormously pleased by the September 11 attack on New York and Washington
> and by the Bush government's declaration of war against Israel's enemies
> in the Middle East. Sharon, however, pretends to be angry about the
> American efforts to build a coalition of so-called "moderate" Arab
> states to help in the war against Afghanistan and Iraq. Sharon blusters
> that the Bush government is trying to "sell Israel out" by making
> agreements with Arab states. These agreements may later turn out to be
> disadvantageous to Israel, Sharon complains.
>
> Sharon is a master of what the Jews proudly call "chutzpah," which is a
> combination of incredible arrogance and spectacular brazenness mixed
> with a breathtaking degree of bald-faced deceit. American long-term
> support for Israel's aggression led to the attack of September 11 in
> which 6,000 Americans were killed; America then launched a war to
> destroy Israel's enemies in the Middle East under the guise of "fighting
> terrorism" and protecting America's "freedom and democracy," and Sharon
> complains that we're doing it at Israel's expense! It's the old Jewish
> trick of never being satisfied, no matter how much is given to them: of
> always complaining that they don't have enough and demanding more, as if
> we owe it to them! If we remind them of how much we already have done
> for them, of how many sacrifices we already have made for them, the
> response is an expression of injured innocence and, "Yes, but vot haff
> you done for us today?"
>
> Really, one hardly can blame them. I don't know who coined the saying,
> "Never give a sucker an even break," but the Jews certainly have taken
> it to heart. That is quite evident to anyone monitoring these Knesset
> discussions. Most of the discussions can be found in Jewish Telegraphic
> Agency or Reuters news reports, but some of the most lurid discussions
> are not reported in print. The week before last the Hebrew-language
> Jerusalem radio station Kol Yisrael -- that's Hebrew for "all Israel" --
> reported one debate that I have not found in print anywhere. According
> to Kol Yisrael, Sharon and Perez were discussing the Israeli
> government's actions against the Palestinians. Perez was arguing that
> the Israelis should at least maintain the pretense of seeking an end to
> the violence in order to keep the Americans happy. Sharon turned angrily
> to Perez and shouted, and I quote: "Every time we do something, you warn
> me that America will do this or America will do that. I will tell you
> something very clearly: don't worry about American pressure on Israel.
> We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." --
> end of quote --
>
> This outburst from Sharon was followed by another warning from Perez
> that Sharon should be careful not to say such things. Clearly, when
> Sharon said that the Americans know that the Jews control their country,
> he wasn't talking about the Sally Soccer Moms and the Joe Sixpacks, who
> don't know anything they aren't told by television. He was talking about
> the politicians and the bureaucrats: about George Bush and Bill Clinton
> and the rest of the crowd that always has done Israel's bidding.
>
> I'm reminded of something that happened 25 years ago, when General
> George Brown was the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. He was
> showing an Israeli delegation some new, high-tech American weapons. The
> Israelis said they wanted them. General Brown told them that they
> weren't available for export, that the Congress hadn't approved them for
> use by anyone except the United States. The Israelis replied arrogantly,
> "Don't you worry about the Congress. We'll take care of the Congress."
> And, of course, they did. They got the weapons they wanted. And General
> Brown got in a lot of trouble and was even accused of "anti-Semitism"
> for telling others about this incident.
>
> You know, we have a big, big problem here in America. The problem is not
> that people all over the world hate our guts and are willing to
> sacrifice their own lives in order to inflict damage on us. The problem
> is not that we are subjected to terrorist attacks with hijacked
> airliners or with deadly biological warfare agents such as anthrax. We
> could lose a lot of people to terrorist attacks and still survive as a
> nation.
>
> The problem is not terrorism. The problem is that we have lost control
> of our own government. Our government no longer responds to our needs;
> instead it responds to the demands of an alien minority and has done
> this for a long time. It's even worse than that. The Jews' control of
> our mass media of news and entertainment, which has enabled them to gain
> control of the politicians and the government, has weakened -- really
> sickened -- our whole people. In order to gain control of the government
> they first had to subvert our people. They had to change our beliefs and
> our attitudes. They had to distract our attention from the important
> things and get us preoccupied with unimportant things. They had to make
> us forget our values and traditions. They had to break down our pride
> and independence. They had to change the way we raise our children. They
> had to subvert our educational system and our churches and other
> institutions, one at a time. They had to confuse us and make us feel
> guilty for being what we were. They had to make us ashamed of our
> forefathers. They had to make us afraid to say in public what we felt
> about our own people and about others. They had to corrupt our political
> system, the way we chose our leaders. And then they were able to take
> control of our government and use us for their own purposes.
>
> I've been preaching about this for more than 30 years -- about the
> effects of Jewish television on our people. I've been writing about it
> in books and pamphlets and leaflets. It was more than 25 years ago that
> I wrote my book The Turner Diaries, warning about what would happen to
> America. I've been warning about it on the Internet. I've been talking
> about it every week in these American Dissident Voices broadcasts. Many
> people listened. Many people agreed with me. But they thought they
> didn't have to do anything. They thought they could sit it out. But
> nobody can sit out what is happening to America now. We are beginning to
> pay the price for allowing ourselves to be subverted, for giving up
> control of our government, of our destiny. We are beginning to pay the
> price for letting ourselves, our nation, be used by an alien minority to
> advance their own interests at the expense of ours.
>
> We are beginning to pay the price, and before we have finished paying
> the price we will discover that it is a heavy price indeed. Bombing the
> whole Middle East flat will not solve our problem. Our problem is here,
> not in Afghanistan or Iraq. What Osama bin Laden gave us on September 11
> was just a wakeup call. What the people mailing out anthrax-infected
> letters are giving us is just a reminder that we can have no real
> security -- in fact, no real future for our children and our
> grandchildren -- until we regain control of our own government. You must
> not believe the generals and the politicians who tell you confidently
> from your television screens that if we just use enough cruise missiles
> and smart bombs and kill enough of the Jews' enemies in the Middle East
> we'll be safe again. Americans will never again have real security or
> real peace of mind until they have regained control of their government
> and their media.
>
> Let's get started!
>
> Thanks for being with me again today.
>
>
>