🚀 go-pugleaf

What Terrifies America's Enemies 

More and More People are Thinking Politically Incorrect Thoughts 

by Dr. William Pierce,
National Alliance Chairman

I talked with you recently about the mentality of journalists, but I 
want to say a few more things on that subject today. I've been getting 
many calls from journalists recently because of the Oklahoma City 
bombing trial and the fact that the defendant is alleged to have read 
one of my books, The Turner Diaries. The journalists always ask me 
whether I think the bombing was inspired by my book, and I always reply 
that I have no way of knowing what was going on in the mind of the 
bomber, but that I am reasonably sure of one thing: if Janet Reno and 
Bill Clinton had not burned all of those women and children to death 
in Waco in 1993, there would have been no bombing of the Federal 
Building in Oklahoma City exactly two years later. Even if the 
perpetrators of the Waco massacre had been put on trial for murder and 
punished with appropriate severity, there would have been no bombing. 

And I always find that the journalists have a hard time understanding 
that. To them the Waco massacre is not at all troubling, and it is 
hardly a reason to be angry at the government. They see all of those 
people who were killed in the Branch Davidian church at Waco as a bunch
of weirdoes, a bunch of crazy religious fanatics, who really deserve 
no sympathy. I mean they weren't at all trendy and jaded and New 
Yorkish like the journalists themselves or like the sort of people the 
journalists meet at cocktail parties in New York or Washington; so 
they don't count. Besides, they were against the government and they 
liked guns, so they deserved what they got. The journalists don't come 
right out and say that, but it's pretty clear that's what they're 
thinking. They show it in a hundred ways. Typical is a front-page 
story about anti-government groups in the March 25, 1997, issue of The 
Village Voice which refers to the government's massacre of the Branch 
Davidians only as "the government's siege at Waco." Bill Clinton and 
Janet Reno didn't massacre all of those women and children at Waco; 
they didn't murder them; they didn't even kill them; they just besieged
them. 

The journalists always minimize Waco; they always use euphemisms and 
avoid words like "murder" and "massacre." And it's clear that they 
regard the Oklahoma City bombing as a far more heinous crime: not 
because there were more casualties at Oklahoma City than at Waco, but 
because the Oklahoma City bombing was a blow at their government, a 
blow at their beloved Clinton administration. In a sense the bombing 
at Oklahoma City was directed against the journalists too, whereas the
Waco massacre wasn't. Which is to say, that any threat to the 
government these days is taken personally by most journalists. 

I tell them that regardless of the beliefs or occupations of the people
 killed at Waco and the people killed in Oklahoma City, I regard the 
Waco massacre as a far more serious and worrisome crime than the 
Oklahoma City bombing, simply because the Federal government committed
the Waco massacre, while presumably it was an individual terrorist, or 
at least a very small group of terrorists having no connection to the 
government who bombed the Federal building in Oklahoma City. I tell 
them that having a small number of terrorists running around bombing 
buildings is one thing, but having the Federal government committing 
massacres is quite another thing. A criminal government is much more 
a threat to its citizens than are a few individual criminals not 
connected to the government. We know how to deal with individual 
terrorists, but how do you deal with a terrorist government? 
But the journalists don't see it that way. They subconsciously 
identify with the government, especially with the Clinton government. 
The government's enemies are their enemies. 

I remember the time I was writing The Turner Diaries, in 1975. That was
a time when the journalists had much less sympathy for the government 
than now. That was a time when all of those big anti-American 
demonstrations were going on in Washington. The journalists all were 
on the side of the demonstrators. They were all on the side of the 
mobs marching in the streets carrying Viet Cong flags and shouting, 
"Ho-ho-ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong's gonna win." 

In 1975 I saw trends in American society, and I tried to understand 
where those trends would take us in the next 20 years. I saw, on the 
one hand, what the journalists' support of the anti-American 
demonstrators and, on the other hand, the government's vacillating and 
ambivalent attitude toward the Vietnam war were doing to American 
society. I saw everyone losing respect for the government, becoming 
angry at the government. I saw the kids on the university campuses 
being led into anti-Americanism by the Jewish-leftist groups. I saw 
the returning Vietnam vets being treated like dirt by the media and by 
the government. And I saw how disillusioned all of the traditionalists 
and patriots who witnessed all of this were becoming. And I predicted 
that this general and widespread loss of respect for the government 
would lead to dangerous social instability and pave the way for civil 
disorder and civil war. But because it was Politically Correct at that 
time to be against the government, the journalists just sneered at me 
and called me a "bigot." 

I looked at what the feminists were doing, with all of their claims 
that men and women are basically the same and should be treated exactly
alike. I saw the breakdown in the traditional relationship between men 
and women that feminism was causing, already in 1975. I saw the growing
hostility between men and women, and I predicted that this would lead 
to an increased incidence of violence against women, an increased 
incidence of rape. I predicted this in The Turner Diaries. The 
journalists could see the same things I saw in 1975, but the 
Politically Correct attitude was to regard feminism as a good thing, 
which could only lead to good consequences. So the journalists sneered 
at what I predicted and called it "hate." 

And I saw the effects that the government's forced mixing of the races 
in the schools and in residential areas and in the workplace were 
having. I saw people becoming alienated. I saw the breakdown of 
traditional community feeling. I saw young people growing up without 
any sense of rootedness, any sense of identity, any sense of belonging.
And I predicted that this alienation would lead to social instability 
and to a thousand other social ills. And the journalists also could see
this growing alienation back in the 1970s, but to all of them forced 
racial mixing was a wonderful thing. It was Politically Correct. It 
was one thing on which they agreed with the government. So they called 
me a "racist" and condemned my predictions. 

And now, 22 years later, what the journalists find truly horrifying 
about The Turner Diaries is not just that the book predicts many 
unpleasant developments, and those developments are beginning to 
happen, they're beginning to become apparent to everyone, they no 
longer can be denied and ignored -- what's really horrifying to the 
journalists is that I based my predictions of those developments on 
the trends of the 1960s and 1970s; I based them on things the 
journalists hold sacred. I predicted that the breakdown of respect for 
the government that they themselves were causing back in the 1960s and 
1970s would lead to terrorism, whereas they would have us believe that 
terrorism is simply what happens when some people are permitted to have
Politically Incorrect opinions. I predicted that feminism would lead 
to increased rape and other violence against women, whereas they would 
have us believe that feminism has nothing to do with it, that it's all 
the result of what they call "sexism." I predicted that forced racial 
mixing would lead to more hatred between the races, more violence 
between the races, and to growing alienation and social instability, 
whereas they would simply blame it all on "White racism." 

The journalists are horrified because I spelled out all of these 
predictions in black and white more than 20 years ago, and now they're 
coming to pass, and as they come to pass they verify the assignment of 
causes I made back in 1975. They verify the assignment of blame I made 
more than 20 years ago, and that blame is against everything which is 
Politically Correct, everything which is Holy Writ to the journalists. I
told the world where feminism and government enforced multiracialism and
the government's no-win policy during the Vietnam war and the media's
encouragement of anti-American demonstrations would lead. I condemned all
of these things and predicted that they would have disastrous consequences
for America, while the journalists praised and supported these same things
and predicted that only good could come from them. 

And now I am being proved right, and they are being proved wrong, and 
the proof is there for all the world to see, as The Turner Diaries 
becomes more and more widely read. That horrifies the journalists and 
fills them with hatred and anger. 

Their reaction is not to examine their beliefs and admit that they 
were wrong. It is not to question their support for feminism and 
multiracialism and think about changing their ideas. No, their 
reaction instead is to condemn my book and look for ways to keep people
from reading it. It is to blame the predictions I made 22 years ago 
for causing the developments I predicted. It is to blame the book 
rather than the destructive social policies I warned against in the 
book. And it is to try to make people frightened of the book, so they 
won't read it. 

Last year, when a new printing of The Turner Diaries began appearing 
on the shelves of major bookstores, a left-wing mailing list huckster 
named Morris Dees, the head of the so-called Southern Poverty Law 
Center, who is a darling of the journalists and always is described by 
them as a "human-rights advocate," launched a letter-writing campaign 
to pressure bookstores into refusing to carry my book. Other Jewish 
organizations also tried to keep the book out of the mainstream. They 
don't want the book read, because it explains what is happening now 
and why it is happening. They are terrified of having people understand
what's going on. They realize that if enough people understand why our 
society is coming apart, why our young women in the Army are being 
raped by Black drill instructors and officers, why the Federal building
in Oklahoma City was bombed, why terrorism is on the rise everywhere, 
why drug usage is way up among our young people, why the suicide rate 
and the divorce rate are so high, why there is so much more corruption 
in the government -- if people understand these things, there will be 
a terrible and bloody reaction against the journalists and the Jews and
everyone else responsible for the policies which have been destroying 
our society. They are terrified that the people they have deceived and 
betrayed for so long will take a bloody vengeance on them. 

This fear of the people finding out what's going on and then doing 
something about it is not just an American phenomenon. Jews, leftists, 
journalists, and politicians in Europe are terrified as well. I have 
an article from Forbes magazine in front of me, the April 7 issue. It 
is an article about the Jewish multibillionaire George Soros and his 
activities around the world. You may have heard of Soros before. He's 
a darling of the controlled media and is always being praised as a 
"philanthropist" and a "human-rights activist." He made his billions 
speculating in currency and commodities, but he spends his money 
propping up crypto-Communist regimes in Europe and sponsoring leftist 
causes. He buys newspapers and uses them to push leftist ideas and 
boost leftist candidates. He literally buys elections in places like 
Hungary and other eastern European countries. And the candidates he 
supports in those countries are the same Communist gangsters who 
plundered and ruined those countries and tyrannized them before the 
breakup of the Soviet Union. Now the Communists have changed hats and 
changed the names of their parties -- now they call themselves 
"socialists" or more often "democrats" -- but they're still the same 
gangsters, and they all should be put up against a wall and shot. And 
they're the people George Soros is spending hundreds of millions of 
dollars every year to keep in power. 

And why is Soros doing that? Forbes tells us why. They quote a Jewish 
banker who is one of Soros' friends. He says, "Soros is terrified of 
right-wing nationalism." And Soros himself says essentially the same 
thing. He is willing to go to any expense to keep patriotic feeling 
from reasserting itself in eastern Europe. He knows that if patriots 
ever regain control of their destiny, not only will all of his kinsmen 
who fattened themselves on the blood of the people of these countries 
under Communist rule be out in the cold, but they may be called to 
account for their crimes. That thought terrifies Soros, just as it 
terrifies journalists over here. 

And a similar process is at work in central and western Europe as well.
The same fear is present among the ruling establishments that were 
installed by the victorious democratic-Communist Allies at the end of 
the Second World War. In most of these countries it has become illegal 
to question the mythology of anti-fascism which these regimes have used
to justify their existence and to shield themselves from criticism. In 
particular, it has become absolutely taboo to question the Jews' claim
to a unique and privileged status in Europe because of their 
"persecution" in the past. 

In late March a magazine editor in Strasbourg, France, was fined more 
than $5000 and given a six-month suspended jail sentence merely for 
publishing an article in his magazine which mentioned that there were 
no gas chambers for killing Jews at a concentration camp in Struthof, 
near Strasbourg. Now there was a concentration camp, a prison camp, at 
Struthof in France during the war. And it is a fact, generally 
recognized by persons knowledgeable about the matter, that there were 
no gas chambers at Struthof for killing Jews. But in France it is 
illegal to mention this fact, because to mention it may raise doubts
about other "Holocaust" claims. To mention this fact may weaken the 
fabric of the whole "Holocaust" mythology, a mythology upon which the 
present establishment in France depends for its moral justification. 
In Europe the "Holocaust" mythology has become a government-backed 
religion, and one may not question any part of it, any "Holocaust" 
claim, no matter how extravagant or absurd. To say, for example, 
"Well, everybody knows that Jews were persecuted during the war, but 
let's face it, we all know that there were no Jews gassed at Struthof,"
is like someone in the 15th century announcing in public, "Well, I
go along with most of the Bible, but I just can't swallow those parts 
about walking on water and the virgin birth." The reaction from the 
authorities would be pretty much the same in the two cases. 

And what happened to that magazine editor in Strasbourg -- whose name, 
by the way, is Gabriel Andres -- has happened to many people recently 
in Germany and other European countries. The liberal-democrat regimes 
are feeling more and more insecure, more and more threatened by the 
specter of a resurgent patriotism which will hold them accountable for 
their treason. And they are responding with a more desperate effort to 
protect the official mythology, to prohibit dissent, to keep the people
from understanding what is going on, and has been going on for more 
than 50 years. 

Will they be successful? Will the media bosses and the Southern Poverty
Law Center and the other powerful Jewish organizations be able to keep 
dissent suppressed in America by screaming, "Hate, hate, hate!" and 
waving The Turner Diaries around every time someone questions their 
policies? Will George Soros be able to keep his crypto-Communist pals 
in office in Hungary and the other plundered nations of eastern Europe
and stifle all patriotic feeling? Will the frightened, crooked, little 
men who run France and Germany and Britain and the other European 
countries be able to keep the people of their countries intimidated 
with threats of imprisonment if they question the official religion of 
the "Holocaust" or ask other embarrassing questions? 

Well, if it depended on the average voter in America or in Europe, they
would be successful. The average voter doesn't care what's true and 
what isn't. He doesn't care about freedom. He's not interested in 
questioning the official religion. As long as he's well fed, he just 
doesn't care about anything except the sports page and the comic strips. 

So why is George Soros terrified? Why are the bought politicians in 
France and Germany and Britain feeling so insecure? Why are the 
journalists and media bosses in America so shrill and so hateful? 

It is because of you, my friends. It is because of the growing minority
of Americans and Frenchmen and Germans an Hungarians who do care. They 
are afraid of you. They know that you are fed up. They know that your 
numbers are growing. They are afraid of what you will do. 
~
For more information or to find out how you can join the leading
patriotic organization in the world today, visit the National Alliance
web site and read "What is the National Alliance" at
http://www.natvan.com/WHAT/WHATDIR.HTML.