Maxwell Hammer's shared items

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Something you should all remember

If you want to know what this site is about. If you want to know why I say mean things about the famous...here's something for you.

Fiona Apple said it best, and everyone laughed at her for it.

I think the problem is that she wasn't mean enough when she said it. Those kind of people only understand extremes.

1 comment:

mario5k said...

When I was seven years old I asked for and received my first chemistry set as a Christmas gift. It became the basis for a little laboratory I had in the garage from then until the time I went away to military school eight years later. Even before my first chemistry set I prowled through curbside trash heaps in my neighborhood, looking for discarded radios, which I would take home and disassemble completely, trying to figure out how they worked. At six I didn't understand much, but I was fascinated by every sort of technological gadget. Later the fascination extended to tools and weapons of every kind. I think it was an instinctive thing, which I inherited from my tool-making ancestors of a million years ago, who inherited it from their tool-using ancestors of five million years ago.
When I was 12 years old I discovered science fiction, and from then on I knew that I wanted to be an astronaut and explore other worlds. That was a long time before Sputnik or manned space flight, and before there was a real possibility for me to become an astronaut circumstances had compelled me to choose another career instead. But I nevertheless have continued to follow the progress of space exploration and always have taken some pride in the fact that I worked for a while in Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where many recent space missions have been planned and the hardware for those missions has been designed.

I have thought often about the role of the tool-making instinct in the history and prehistory of our race. And I have associated this instinct with a more general characteristic of our people which I -- and others also -- have called the Faustian spirit. That's the spirit which drives us not only to build things and to invent things but to explore and to try to understand ourselves and the world around us. It is a spirit which makes us seek power not just for the sake of mere power, but also for the sake of progress, for the sake of building new things. It leads us to conquer not merely for the sake of conquest, but also to improve and develop that which we conquer. It leads us to value truth over and above any practical value that truth may have; to value knowledge above any monetary gain that knowledge may yield.

Thinking about these things led me long ago to the conclusion that it is this Faustian spirit which, more than any other trait of our people, led us to become masters of the whole world by the beginning of the last century. Some of the races of Asia are clever enough -- the Chinese and the Japanese, the Jews, the Indians -- but their cleverness has a different flavor from that of our people. We Europeans always have been the preeminent explorers and innovators, the people who explored because we wanted to learn more, not just because we thought there might be some money in it for us.

Neither the Faustian spirit nor the fascination with tools is universal among our people, of course. The Faustian spirit is essentially a masculine spirit, and it often is at odds with both the feminine spirit and the mercantile spirit. When our society is virile and forward-looking and willing to take chances, the Faustian spirit is dominant. When virility is in decline, and we become more interested in comfort and self-indulgence and security and conformity, then the Faustian spirit in us -- in our society, in our civilization -- also is in decline.

Well, everything I've said so far today is by way of introduction to a couple of really depressing illustrations of the decline in virility in that segment of our society that in healthier times was on the cutting edge of our climb upward toward the stars and was the purest embodiment of our Faustian spirit -- and that is our scientific/academic segment, the seekers of knowledge and understanding.

Let's begin with something everyone has heard about very recently: the mapping of the human genome: which is to say the determination of the sequence of the basic building blocks in the long strands of human genetic material that determine what we are. That is certainly a grand and worthwhile project, even if it is more a massive application of technology than a scientific breakthrough. And to me it really is depressing to have to note that some of the people involved in this grand project are so much in the grip of Political Correctness that their ability to do meaningful or valid science is in real doubt. One of the actors in the genome mapping project is J. Craig Venter, who is the president of a biotechnology company called Celera Genomics Corporation. Mr. Venter and his company hope to make lots of money from their genome mapping work by selling the results to pharmaceutical companies. And Mr. Venter also wants to be very sure that his company is in the forefront of Political Correctness as well as biotechnology.

At a White House ceremony a few days ago, in which several of the genome project's leaders met with Bill Clinton to make a public but somewhat premature announcement of the completion of the project, Venter used the occasion to tell the world that his company had used DNA from five individuals in its mapping work, and among those five were a mestizo, a Black, an Asian, and a White. The choice of DNA donors had been made, he said, "out of respect for the diversity that is America and to help illustrate that the concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis." Really. Blacks are not Blacks for genetic reasons but because of poverty and discrimination, I suppose -- or to be really Correct, Blacks are different from us only because of White racism, not because their genes are different.

That's about as silly and anti-scientific a statement as I have heard in this silly era. It's what one might have expected from the late Carl Sagan or some of the other Jewish pseudo-scientific gurus of Political Correctness, who spend much more time in front of the TV cameras propagandizing the couch potatoes than they spend in the laboratory, but it really is depressing to hear that coming from the head of a cutting-edge biotechnology firm. Perhaps Mr. Venter figures that his show of Political Correctness will help him garner a government grant. Anyway, any errors introduced into his part of the genome mapping because of his insistence that no differences be found among the genomes of the various races can be corrected later by objective researchers, but it is really disappointing that none of these objective researchers had the courage to speak up or even to laugh after he made his silly statement at the White House.

Well, I suppose that's no worse than the situation we had in the Middle Ages, when the priests would awe the peasants with the announcement that some statue in the church had been seen to weep real tears or to bleed from nail holes in its hands or feet, and the scientific-minded citizens would bite their lips in order to avoid laughing. In those days Politically Incorrect laughter could get a person burned at the stake. But really, it's a shame that we haven't made more progress in that regard during the past few centuries. Or to state the case more precisely, it's a shame that we seem now to be sliding back toward the climate of superstition and fear and Political Correctness which prevailed at times in the past.

Another illustration of this sort of thing is the teaching of Black History in our schools. Historians who know better bite their tongues and are afraid to contradict the Politically Correct charlatans who make the most laughable claims about Black achievements and Black inventiveness. The charlatans get the promotions and the textbook contracts, and those who laugh at the charlatans get fired. Well, one of these days we'll return to sanity, hang the charlatans, redo the genome research, and rewrite the history textbooks.

There are other academic and scientific areas where the harm being done by Political Correctness has more immediately lethal consequences, however. It is a fact that, contrary to Mr. Venter, Blacks and Whites are genetically different. One of the genetic differences between the two races shows up in their different susceptibilities to infection by the Human Immuno-deficiency Virus, or HIV, the virus which causes AIDS. If Blacks and Whites are given equal exposure to the virus, Blacks are much more likely to become infected by it.

Beyond this genetically based difference in susceptibilities, behavioral differences between Blacks and Whites result in Blacks getting much more exposure to HIV. Blacks are much more promiscuous in their sexual behavior, for example, with many more sexual partners, on the average, than Whites. Blacks have a much greater rate of infection by other sexually transmitted diseases -- such as gonorrhea, for example -- and are less likely to seek treatment for these diseases, and the lesions from these diseases greatly increase the likelihood that HIV will be transferred during sexual activity. Finally, Blacks are less likely to use condoms and are more likely to be intravenous drug abusers than Whites. All of these behavioral differences lead to a greater incidence of HIV infection among Blacks than Whites. Of course, to a very substantial degree, these behavioral differences leading to greater exposure also are genetically based, just as is the difference in susceptibility to infection.

Anyway, whether due to genes or behavior, the fact is that Blacks have a much greater incidence of HIV infection than Whites do. That, however, is what might be called a Politically Inconvenient fact. There are times when the liberals and the Jewish media want to use the fact to persuade us to provide more AIDS relief to Africa, where the disease is decimating the Black population, but they don't want to talk too much about it in America, lest we start wondering why AIDS is spreading so rapidly among African Blacks and perhaps even start asking questions about American Blacks. What the liberals and the Jewish media want us to believe is that there is no substantial difference between Whites and Blacks where AIDS is concerned, and what difference exists is due to White racism or something of the sort which is our fault, not theirs. And one of the most important reasons the Jews and the liberals don't want us to think about Black and White differences with regard to AIDS is that they don't want to discourage sexual contact between Blacks and Whites.

In fact, the Jewish mass media, from Hollywood to Madison Avenue, are engaged now in a crash program to encourage sexual activity between White women and Black males. Every second film coming from Hollywood these days seems to be pairing White actresses with Blacks. And the fashion advertisements from Madison Avenue are showing White women together with Black men much more suggestively than ever before. It is unfortunate, but our women are very susceptible to such suggestions. They are mindlessly eager to do whatever Hollywood and Madison Avenue convince them is fashionable at the moment, no matter how disgusting or self-destructive.

In view of this media campaign encouraging racial mixing, my organization, the National Alliance, has tried to counter it by appealing to the instinct for self-preservation in those White women in which that instinct is able to compete successfully against the instinct to be fashionable. To this end we have distributed a large number of leaflets and stickers warning White women of the AIDS dangers inherent in sexual contact with Blacks. Specifically, our materials warn White women not to have sex with intravenous drug abusers, bisexuals, or Blacks, and it informs them that heterosexual Black males are 14 times more likely to be infected with HIV than heterosexual White males.

Now, the liberals and the Jews don't mind our warning our women not to have sex with intravenous drug abusers or bisexuals, both of whom have a much higher infection rate than the rest of the population, but it drives them into a frenzy of hatred and rage when we warn them not to have sex with Blacks. I mean, that's racist, isn't it? The first thing they do is deny that Blacks are more likely to be infected with HIV than Whites are. And I'm sure that some of the White liberals really believe that. They have tried so hard for so long to convince themselves that Blacks are equal to Whites that they simply can't cope with any evidence that in fact the two races are intrinsically and irremediably different.

What is much more alarming than this liberal inability to deal with reality is the willingness of scientifically and medically knowledgeable people to go along with this denial of reality for the sake of Political Correctness. Three months ago National Alliance members distributed our AIDS warnings on the Austin campus of the University of Texas. The Jews, the liberals, and the Blacks reacted as one might expect, writing hysterical letters to the campus newspaper, organizing rallies against racism, and demanding that the university administration do something to stop the National Alliance's activities on the campus. Decades ago any men with principles, a sense of personal honor, or any regard for the truth were purged from the ranks of university administrators, and what's left is a collection of spineless bureaucrats whose main function is to beg for money and to suck up to Jews and other minorities. The president of the University of Texas, Larry Faulkner, is typical. In response to the demands from Jews and other liberals he issued a statement in which he said of our AIDS warnings:


We deplore the hateful and racially intolerant message expressed in these fliers.
Later in his statement he said:


Hateful messages such as those expressed in the fliers should be rejected by all civilized people.
Well, of course, there is nothing "hateful" or "racially intolerant" in our AIDS warnings. There are no racial slurs, no insults. The only thing said about any race in them is that heterosexual Black males are 14 times as likely to be infected with HIV as heterosexual White males. That's it. Why is that "hateful"? President Faulkner will tell you why it's hateful. It's not true that Blacks are more likely to be infected with HIV, he'll tell you. Our statement about Blacks and HIV is false and is simply intended to prevent loving relationships between White women and Black men. Other campus spokesmen reported that they had checked with knowledgeable campus medical personnel and had been told that our statement about Blacks and HIV is false. The claim that our statement is false appeared in every news story about our AIDS warning which was published in the campus newspaper. Not one faculty scientist stepped forward to point out that our statement is essentially correct and errs only by slightly understating the disparity in HIV infection rates between Blacks and Whites: not one spoke up. And certainly, there are plenty of them who know the truth.

Some of our members distributed a number of our AIDS warnings in Tacoma, Washington, last month, and the reaction by local liberals and media people was essentially the same as at the University of Texas: lots of hand-wringing and moaning about "hate," and, oh, isn't it awful that we can't shut up the haters so that we can all love each other? And some of the hand-wringers were saying things such as, "The only race is the human race, so how can there be a racial difference in HIV infection rates?" Not very masculine thinking, to be sure, but that's what passes for reason in America these days. Of course, the hand-wringers were able to find a few "experts" to bolster their claims about AIDS being an equal-opportunity disease and our statement about the racial disparity in infection rates being false. These claims were repeated in every newspaper story about our distribution of AIDS warning stickers. The Tacoma Reporter, for example, in its June 29 issue, reported:


The Center [sic] for Disease Control's 1999 statistics show that heterosexual African-American males in the United States are only twice as likely to be infected with the AIDS [sic] virus as are heterosexual White males, no surprise to people who understand the lack of education and resources in neighborhoods whose residents are primarily black.
Well, of course, the statistics of the Centers for Disease Control show no such thing, although the Tacoma Reporter apparently found someone working there to tell the liberals what they wanted to hear. The Centers for Disease Control is the government's front line of defense against all of the new, exotic pathogens coming to America with the flood of Third World immigrants so beloved of the liberals. They have to keep track of and try to cope with everything from HIV to drug-resistant strains of the tuberculosis-causing bacillus to the West Nile virus. And when one race is much more susceptible to a particular pathogen than another race, then that's an important scientific fact the Centers for Disease Control needs to take into account. If they begin putting Political Correctness ahead of scientific rigor, we're all in real trouble.

And it was to the Centers for Disease Control that I myself went three years ago for information on the racial disparity in HIV infection rates before preparing our AIDS-warning publications. I went there again just a few days ago to see whether or not the data had changed, and it had. The 1999 data show that heterosexual Black males are now 15 times as likely as heterosexual White males to be infected with HIV. When I checked in 1997 the number was 14, but the racial disparity is increasing; the infection is spreading more rapidly among Blacks than among Whites, and the difference is not due to White racism.

It's understandable, of course, that liberals don't want to believe that there is such a huge disparity in infection rates between Blacks and Whites. They don't want to believe such a big number, because it implies a real racial difference, a genetically based difference. It undermines their whole egalitarian ideology.

Well, liberals are liberals. They are suffering from their own spiritual disease, their own disease of the soul. They've always been sick. What is really alarming now is that their sickness has infected our scientific and academic communities. Information no longer is judged on the basis of whether or not it is true, but rather on the basis of whether or not it is Politically Correct. That is one of the principal reasons why our civilization is in a state of decline today.

By the way, you may be interested in checking with the Centers for Disease Control yourself, before they stop posting Politically Incorrect data. Ask for the HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, volume 11, number 2, for December 1999. You'll find the data broken down by sex, race, and sexual orientation.

All too often, people who are racially conscious can fall into the trap of just seeing all the bad things happening around them. This can become so overwhelming that they start to miss the good completely. It is easy to identify these types of people, because they come across as negative about everything. Some of them get so used to bad news, that they actually shun good news. These people, for whatever reason, have become the prophets of doom and gloom.
The National Alliance has always had a focus on improvements for the White race. That is one aspect that attracted me to National Vanguard magazine back in the 1980s. The one thing that really caught my attention was the combination of racial awareness, intelligence, optimism and plans for a better society which shone through in the writings of Dr. William Pierce.

He did not shy away from saying what was wrong, but he also spelled out what was right. Back then, like now, there were very few publications that were put together by racial Whites of a high caliber. But one thing that Dr. Pierce did do differently was the way he opened up the playing field to a wide array of topics with an equally wide variety of opinions. One theme that he made prominent was the creation of a motivated, intelligent association of racially-minded Whites who shared ideas about our race's future.

I remember very well one essay that Dr. Pierce wrote which was called: "In Elitists and Out Elitists." That essay was so brilliant, it should have been translated into a dozen languages and discussed in hundreds of different universities around the world. Unfortunately, we live in an age when our greatest thinkers are suppressed by the Jewish Supremacists, but that will change one day, and Dr. Pierce's writings will be hailed as the intellectual achievements that they are. But, that does not mean that we should not create, circulate and discuss those ideas right now. Often it is just the discussion of ideas that creates change in society. And, as history proves, it is usually the most persistent and persuasive who accomplish their goals, not the wisest or noblest, as would be the case in a healthy society. Because of this fact, we must, as a collective group of racially aware Whites, discuss plans for our better society in the future.

We can start out with the biological aspects of race itself. This topic is usually interesting to most racial White people. But the fact is, a large number of Whites don't understand the concept of Eugenics very well. In fact, over the years, I have met a large percentage of racially aware Whites who either did not know anything about Eugenics or knew so little, so as not to be able to explain the topic to anyone. So, how is it that such a huge subject as Eugenics, with it being such an important topic can go so overlooked?

Well, let's look at the topic throughout time. The concept is as old as sex, yet Eugenics is a field of biology and as such, being a real scientific field, it really only grew to importance and understanding in the late 1800s after Charles Darwin revolutionized science with the theory of evolution. Eugenics became a highly respected social goal for entire nations. Some European nations practiced legal sterilization programs up through the 1970s, which is only one part of Eugenics. China, on the other hand, just really started a national Eugenics program in 1992. That is good news for China and bad news for the White race.

But, a brief discussion of Eugenics alone does very little. I can and will discuss Eugenics in detail on these ADV programs, but what we need is racially aware Whites of intelligence and ability to specialize in subjects like Eugenics. We need to expand the range of intelligent resource material available on this topic amongst ourselves and the public in general.

Let me give you an example of where this has already happened, with regard to the topic of inherent intelligence differences between the different races. Professor William Shockley, who led the team at Bell Laboratories which invented the transistor, is the key player in my example. Professor Shockley was in fact awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for the invention of this great scientific breakthrough.

He was, however, more than just a scientist: he was a White nationalist as well. Alarmed at the huge misinformation campaign, based on emotional rhetoric alone, waged by Jews and Liberals in the 1960s over the topic of race and intelligence, he set out on a one-man crusade to correct the imbalance.

Professor Shockley didn't develop any new major finding regarding intellectual racial differences. His colleague, Professor Arthur Jensen actually produced a great many discoveries in this field, and although both men were friends and associates, it was Shockley, with his world fame, who was able to keep this topic alive.

As a result, Shockley was able to generate enough interest with his findings, to energize a whole new generation of scientists who were able to see through the liberal fog generated over the topic of race and IQ.

A few years after Professor Shockley died, a book was published that made shock waves. The Bell Curve sold out quickly, several times, even though it was a large, expensive, academic book. This was unheard of at the time and there really hasn't been any repeat of such an influential book. The two authors of the book were not racial at all. One was a Jew, the other appears to have just wanted to steal Shockley's platform, and had no real interest in helping the White race.

After The Bell Curve circulated, a whole slough of copycat articles popped up in academic journals all over the world. Some of these articles have even been written by Jewish scientists, such as Professor Michael Levin from New York University. This is, of course, ironic. And, as ironic as it is, the fact that some Jews and former liberals have been instrumental in allowing the topic of race and IQ to gain acceptance in academia once again.

This isn't to say that Liberals have accepted the truth to racial differences and, specifically, that intelligence levels are different among the races, but a large enough minority of Jews and Liberals now do believe this to be a factor. And, more importantly, scientists can today openly hold these beliefs, without committing career-suicide.

It is a fact, that today, at the start of 2006, it is easier to openly discuss this topic and for scientists to state that they agree with the belief that the races have genetically predetermined differences in intelligence. Twenty years ago this wasn't possible. Even the most prestigious of all scientific journals, Science, printed a very skewed, liberal study on the topic a few years ago, where they admitted that genetics are responsible for half of a person's Intelligence Quotient (IQ). This wasn't done because the Jews and Liberals who edit Science suddenly wanted to end the Jew World Order and return truth back to the science of race. This happened in spite of Scienceand all the other Jew-controlled publications. Cell, which is the most important scientific journal that specializes in biology, has also printed a few similar studies, but they were more honest and low key.

The reason that Science printed and publicized this study, even as inaccurate as it is, was because that even Science couldn't suppress the truth surrounding this issue anymore. In order not to seem completely out of it, they printed a Politically Correct study, which claimed that genetics made up 49% of intelligence and environment made up the other 51%. It was kind of funny, because these ridiculous "desired" figures were generated solely by political motivation, and were such patent nonsense that no one even quoted them or tried to use them in any sort of argument. With all the hoopla that the staff at Science thought they would throw at the story, the subject just continued to grow in a manner opposite of what they wanted.

From the 1960s through the 1980s, the topic of race and IQ was an absolute taboo in academia. Yet today, although bleeding heart liberals want to believe that all races are intellectually equal, anyone can go into just about any bookstore and get a book on the topic which shows the opposite. The suppression of that aspect of racial science is not yet completely over. But rather, it is growing within a broad base within the younger generation of the scientific community, something which would have been impossible just a few years ago.

Professor William Shockley was the one man most responsible for this important change in academia. He was the man that made this change -- and almost every great change in the world is caused by the willpower from one determined, White man. That is a historical reality.

So, today, how do we then resurrect the subject of Eugenics?

Right now, the topic is a shunned taboo. We can learn from Professor Shockley's example. He caused a whole host of others, Arthur Jensen, Glayde Whitney, Phillip Ruston, and many others, to pick up the torch of racial IQ differences and carry it forth, with overwhelming success. And, as every new study from around the world is undertaken on differences in race, then we, the White racialists who knew this all along, are vindicated.

But, just as Galileo was placed under house arrest and didn't live to enjoy what should have been many well-earned rewards for his contributions and sacrifices, Professor Shockley also never received the credit he deserved. This might be our fate as well, but we do not seek the personal glory: we seek the betterment and survival of our race.

Today we need to resurrect Eugenics. Each White man and woman who is interested in the topic can make a contribution. To be successful, it must be natural and grow from true interest. To do this, articles need to be written, speeches given, and ideas nurtured and expanded upon. These can't come from people who are "writers" per se, but rather people who have a keen interest in the subject matter itself. The "writer" types are those who can polish up the words and make the paragraphs shine, but they don't envision the subject matter with the clarity of understanding that is needed.

The National Alliance will do its part in keeping abreast of the subject matter, and to present it to the public as this is an integral portion of our ideology and world vision. And, as this topic is broached, interested people will help to spread the message further.

Eugenics must become a household understanding within the racial community before it can be explained to the world.

There are many similar topics which we need to address to create a better society. Another example is personal finance.

I've talked with about 10 people over the last six months who have lost some or a lot of money with their 401k retirement plan. (For listeners not in America, the 401K retirement plan is a private pension scheme.) I know of others who have gained very little over the last few years. This topic of a retirement plan might not interest everyone who is angry at the Jewish power structure, but it actually is an important part of the bigger picture.

Let's briefly imagine a better society for White people. In this society, there is a pension fund for White people who worked and contributed for their nation by the time they reach retirement age. In this better society, we can't have all of these pension funds being looted by the mafia or when a bubble bursts in the stock market. The best pension funds so far have been when money is paid into a locked-fund that has a low, but steady yield.

Since Ronald Reagan championed the 401k as the great liberator for retirement pensions, more and more big and small businesses have just eliminated retirement pensions all together. The money paid into Social Security is in such chaos, that the best thing that the spin doctors can tell us is that in about 25 years or sooner, America will have a complete economic collapse because of federal liabilities. The various payments to retirees to the ratio of income will be such that the federal government will stop functioning.

Some of our more Freebooting listeners might just say, "Great, the sooner the better." And, I can certainly see the logic to that, but that still doesn't fix the problem. What do we need to do for our race to make the best society imaginable? What is the best form of retirement pension for members of our race? I'm not a pension specialist, but there are many racial White people who are. It is from those specialists, those Whites who know the subject matter, who are keen on the different variables in pensions, from which a new idea will spring forth. Maybe it isn't even a new idea, maybe it's an old, tried and true method. But what we need to do is to create the platform in which such ideas can at least be discussed, because what we have now isn't working at all.

I know of one man, who, after working six years paying into a 401k, changed jobs. After that his pension money matured for eight years, but it was 40% less than when he started. And, this isn't just one case. There are millions of people just like this.

The money that we all earn is right now taxed at a rate of about 50%, when all hidden taxes, such as fuel, sales tax and so forth are factored in. Where is this all going? Well, think about the cost of illegal aliens, Negro crime and welfare, Jewish corruption, private banking interests, military expenses in Iraq, Serbia, Vietnam, big business perks, etc., then you will quickly see where all these trillions of dollars go.

If White people just allow all of their money to be taken from them, in taxes, and be spent on everything else, then it is a simple mathematical certainty that there will be none left for White people upon retirement.

So, the government gives us the wonderful option of allowing us to take our own money and pay it into a 401k pension plan, which goes to some huge mutual fund which can legally devaluate the lump sum to almost nothing, by accident or intention. That mutual fund has no obligation to safeguard any of that money specifically for the pension of our nation's retirees.

America is sitting on a massive financial disaster, ticking away right now underneath us, and every patriotic White person needs to realize this. All of the economic prosperity of the 1990s has been wasted under the Bush government, and his massive deficit spending has been the greatest in American history.

Couple this with the large illegal alien population which doesn't pay into taxes, but only takes from taxes, and you have a guaranteed recipe for disaster.

I still remember a huge debate over illegal alien health care benefits which took place in the mid-1990s when I was living in San Diego. The single largest expense item in the county's budget was for illegal alien health care, which had reached the crisis point of 40% of the entire budget. They were trying to get other California counties, the State and the Federal government, as well as the Mexican government, to help bail them out.

For some reason, Liberals always overlook these facts when they discuss how great it is to have open borders.

Whenever I hear one of these naive Liberals talk about how the fact that White people immigrated here from Europe, so therefore we need to allow all the non-Whites to flood into our country, I just wish we could get then to sign a legal waiver that forfeits their taxed money (and only "their" taxed money) to the non-Whites.

We can bring up the topic for improvements in mass transit, but until we get the non-White problem fixed, it will be a non-starter as they will ruin that before it can ever benefit Whites.

We can discuss the advancement of space exploration and colonization, and we will.

We can talk about a better education system or the improvement in architectural beauty, which I would enjoy discussing in depth.

We can't just complain about the woes of our people, but we must plan for a better society.

But all of this is dependent upon a solution to the racial question, as the presence of large numbers of non-Whites in any of the above scenarios skews the contributing factors beyond measure.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Giving away White peoples' money and living space to non-Whites doesn't just help the non-Whites have a better life. All it does is produce the opposite reaction, which is to hurt our race.

But, instead of just preaching to the choir about non-White immigration or Negro crime, we need to also write special articles, hold day-long symposiums, and publish books on ways of creating a better biological stock of humans (Eugenics), of a better retirement plan for the people of our race, and so many other issues.

We must increase the understanding of these really important topics and others, and expand upon them with debates on different various models. We can create a greater nation. We can, and, we will. It is our ultimate destiny that which drives us on.

At the start of the New Year, I would like to wish every racially aware White man and woman around the world the very best. I hope 2006 is a great year for the White race. I hope that this year becomes an earth-shaking eventful year which is spoken of by our ancestors for a thousand years hence.

I hope that all of you listening will seriously consider joining with us, the men and women of the National Alliance. Together, we can build a better society for the White race.

I'VE SPOKEN OFTEN with you about the Jewish monopoly control of our mass media of news and entertainment. Recently I detailed the takeover of the Disney company by Jews and its conversion into an instrument of brainwashing used against young Americans.

In addition to this consolidation of Jewish control over the media, there's another subversive campaign underway in this country which is just as dangerous for our future. It's the campaign to stifle any expression of opinion except those coming from the Jew-controlled mass media: the campaign to outlaw all dissident voices.

When I've mentioned this campaign in the past, some people have thought I was being an alarmist. They believe that freedom of speech is too deeply rooted in American soil to be done away with by a few extremists in the Clinton administration, or any administration. The American people won't tolerate having their freedom of speech taken away, they believe.

I wish that I could share their optimism. What makes it difficult for me to do so is the fact that there is a growing body of opinion in America that no one should have the right to do or say anything which offends someone else. The people who believe this are not only entrenched in the Clinton administration, they're entrenched in the Congress, in the universities, and in many other American institutions. These people will tell you with a straight face that the First Amendment was never meant to protect offensive speech -- or what they more often these days call -- hate speech. The Constitution doesn't give anyone the right to hurt someone else's feelings, they say. It doesn't give anyone the right to offend someone else. It doesn't give anyone the right to say unkind things about someone else, so that other people might be influenced by what is said and then in turn think or say unkind things themselves -- perhaps even do something unkind.

Actually, what these Politically Correct people really mean, although they won't tell you this -- what they really mean is that no one should be permitted to write or say anything which might offend one of the officially favored classes of people: homosexuals, morally or physically defective people, Jews, Blacks or members of other non-White racial groups, and women. They see nothing wrong with offending a White male, for example: they do it themselves all the time. But they do believe that it ought to be illegal to do or say something offensive to almost anyone else.

Let me tell you about something which happened last month in Ottawa. I'm reading from a news article in the August 5 issue of the Toronto Sun. It says:

'A female Ottawa dentist who wore a facemask, gloves, and gown while treating an HIV-positive patient is facing charges of discrimination by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. . . . Medical history revealed that the patient was HIV-positive and had a past drug dependency, according to an Ontario Dental Association report. Before treating the patient in the two and one half hour visit, the dentist discussed with the patient her preference to wear a disposable gown, gloves, facemask, and eye protection while treating the patient. Following completion of the treatment the patient left without any negative comment about the care he received and booked for a six-month checkup.'

That's the first part of the Toronto Sun story. The dentist and the patient talked things over before the treatment began; the dentist then put on her disposable gown, gloves, and so on to protect herself from the blood and saliva of the AIDS-infected patient; and after the treatment the patient left with no complaint.

But then one of the Politically Correct watchdogs of the Human Rights Commission heard about it, and things changed in a hurry. The Toronto Sun article continues:

'Both the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Royal College of Dental Surgeons say in a report that the dentist acted in a discriminatory manner when she wore a paper gown in addition to her barrier protection gear, based solely on the patient's HIV status.'

The news article went on to say that the dentist must not treat a patient with AIDS in any way differently from a healthy patient. If she doesn't wear a paper gown in treating healthy patients, then it is discriminatory to wear one when working on an AIDS-infected patient's teeth.

The article continues:

'The Ontario Human Rights Commission has threatened legal action against the dentist unless she complies with eight conditions, including paying the patient $8,000 to "compensate him for his mental anguish." '

Well, you say, that was Canada, not the United States.

Let me tell you, the people of Canada are not really very different from the people of the United States. What they will let their government get away with now, we'll let our government get away with in five or ten years. America already is swarming with Human Relations Councils and Human Rights Councils, whose business it is to sniff out cases of AIDS carriers who have had their feelings hurt by some insensitive person who refused to treat them as if they were healthy. And believe me, every one of these Human Rights Councils in the United States is just itching to have the judicial power to order people locked up who say or do anything they don't like.

I have another newspaper article in front of me, this one from the Minneapolis-St Paul Star Tribune for July 23. It describes a ruling issued by an official of the Minneapolis city government, warning city workers that henceforth they may be disciplined for what the official calls "visual harassment." By "visual harassment" the official means looking at any female who does not want to be looked at. A woman had complained to the official, he said, that it made her "uncomfortable" that members of city work crews had stared at her as she walked past them. The name of the official who decided that such looking would henceforth result in disciplinary action is, believe it or not, Carl Markus. Not Marx, just Markus.

Now that would just be funny, if it were an isolated case. But things just as ridiculous, just as Orwellian, are happening every day in America. The people who want to get rid of the First Amendment -- and the rest of the Bill of Rights too -- the people who want to make it illegal to say or do anything which might offend an AIDS carrier or a feminist with a chip on her shoulder or whatever -- are probing, pushing, trying to see what they can get away with, trying to see how far they can go, how much the American people will tolerate. The two articles I've quoted from today I chose as examples because of the air of absurdity to them which makes them a little catchy, a little memorable. But I have a hundred more news articles from the past few months which in more prosaic terms describe the same sort of efforts to outlaw offensiveness, or "hate, as it's often called.

Perhaps I should say at this point that I understand what it means to be offended and to have one's feelings hurt. I've worn glasses since I was five years old, and it used to hurt my feelings when some of my school classmates would call me "four eyes." I used to do pretty well in my school work too, and as a result occasionally one of the kids who didn't do so well would refer to me sneeringly as "Einstein." That really made me feel uncomfortable.

And I'm sure it's uncomfortable for a person who's overweight to hear herself called "fatso." I'm sure it makes a retarded person feel bad to be told he's stupid. I'm sure that a person who's not attractive doesn't like to be reminded of that fact.

But, you know, that's life. We all put up with a lot of things we don't like. We try to make the best of it. If we're fat and we don't like being called fatso, we try to lose some weight. If we're nearsighted and have to wear glasses, perhaps we can switch to contact lenses -- or take karate lessons and punch out anybody who calls us "four eyes."

There's really something seriously wrong with the people who believe that it should be illegal to hurt a homosexual's feelings, or to stare at a pretty girl -- or to call a person who wears glasses "four eyes," for that matter. Some of these people clearly believe that it's more important for us all to be able to feel good about ourselves all the time than it is for us to be free.

And some of these people are simply using the "feel good" faction to push their own agenda, which is to make it impossible for the few people who have figured out what they're up to tell the rest of the people. They want to make it illegal to tell people about the Jewish control of the news and entertainment media, for example. They want to make it illegal for this program to be on the air. They call this program "hate radio," because it is offensive to them.

What makes me worry so much is that the "feel good" faction is growing. There's something unhealthy about life in America today, and it's making more and more people really believe that they have a right not to be offended or have their feelings hurt, and that that supposed right is more important than the right to free speech. And the folks who are taking advantage of this sickness by pushing the idea that offensive speech or hate speech ought to be outlawed are becoming more pushy in their efforts.

Back in 1978 I wrote a novel which I called The Turner Diaries. It's a novel about life in the United States as I imagined it might be in the 1990s, if some of the trends I could see in the 1970s continued for another 20 years. I imagined that the government would become more repressive, and it has. I imagined that most of the people would react in a sheeplike way to government repression and would not complain as long as they could still be comfortable and feel good, and that's the way it's turned out. And I imagined that a few people would not react like sheep, but instead would fight back violently -- and a few have. In writing my novel, I really tried to be realistic, and to speak my mind completely. I didn't rewrite any part of my book or leave out any part because I thought it might be offensive to some people -- and, of course, it has been.

I have a clipping here from the July 14 issue of The Jewish Press, which is published in New York City and which describes itself as the world's largest circulation English-language Jewish newspaper. It's a story about what the folks at The Jewish Press see as a need to "close the loopholes in the U. S. Constitution," as they so nicely put it. And it's a story about the novel I wrote. I'll read you a couple of paragraphs from this story in The Jewish Press:

'The radical right is taking advantage of the Republican victory in Congress to push its own agenda in defiance of the principles that have made the United States a haven for persecuted minorities, a beacon of freedom, justice, and liberty to all people. Unfortunately, the man-made laws under which we operate are like a two-edged sword, offering opportunity to all elements of society to achieve their goals but also similar rights for all to speak their minds even when it contravenes the very essence of tolerance and democracy. One glaring example of this attempt to exploit the loopholes in the U.S. Constitution to bring prejudice and racism in their most vicious forms to public attention is the publication in 1978 of a book called The Turner Diaries by Andrew Macdonald, the pseudonym of William L Pierce, a former professor of physics and research scientist . . . . Pierce's book, which surpasses Mein Kampf in its virulent anti-Semitism, has sold more than 187,000 copies. It describes an end-of-the-century scenario in which the Jewish dominated government is overthrown by the Organization, an underground white group which succeeds where Nazism failed. . . . Our first reaction . . . is that even in the United States there must be a limit to such abuse of so-called freedom of speech. We have enough experience with vicious racists to justify some control over their actions. '

Did you note the phrase "so-called freedom of speech"? These folks at The Jewish Press really would like for the government to prohibit the writing and publication of novels with plots they find offensive or hateful.

I have another newspaper clipping, this one from the August 23 edition of the Fulton County Daily Report. It's an editorial written by two radical feminists, one a law professor and the other a law student at Northwestern University. Like The Jewish Press these two women also focus on my novel The Turner Diaries. They urge that the laws of our land be changed so that I and others who write books they find offensive can be prosecuted -- or at least sued for the damage they claim our writing causes. In my case, they allege that the person or persons who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City earlier this year were caused to do so by reading The Turner Diaries, and so therefore I should be sued for all of the deaths and property loss caused by that act. And, of course, the same for other books which they allege caused people to do harmful things or which offend people -- and, believe me, these women and their friends on the Human Rights Councils are easily offended. And they are quick to see a cause-and-effect relationship between written words or an image in a book and criminal acts by people who read those words. They take it for granted that literature which they consider demeaning to women causes men to rape women. I'll read you just a little of their article:

'Even under current constitutional law, all speech is not equally protected regardless of content. The test is whether the harm caused by the speech is so grave that it outweighs the benefits of protecting its authors from liability. Usually the answer is no. This delicate balancing of interests, however, depends upon judgments about the severity of the harm, not on some absolute legal protection for all things written. Wrapping William Pierce in the fabric of the First Amendment ensures that there is a class of harms occasioned by violent and hate-filled images -- insults, threats, beatings, rapes, and killings -- that remain immune from ordinary legal consequence, even when cause and effect are plainly evident. In reality, if not in First Amendment theory, there persists a connection between image, incitement, and violence: cross-burnings and lynchings, yellow stars and deportations, pornography and rape, The Turner Diaries and Oklahoma City. '

Well, it's pretty clear what these two feminists have in mind, even if they don't come right out and say it. They want to make it illegal for you or for me to insult or offend them or someone in solidarity with them -- or, barring that, they want to be able to sue us for saying something which hurts the feelings of an AIDS carrier or a homosexual or a feminist or a member of one of the other officially protected minorities. They say, in effect, "Look, if we let William Pierce get away with writing books like The Turner Diaries just because of this obsolete legal fiction called the First Amendment, then we'll also have to put up with all sorts of other insults and hate-filled images."

I don't know what sort of insults have so rankled these two feminist lawyers, but it's pretty clear that they're rankled. I wouldn't worry about that so much, except that I'm afraid that the number of feel-good trendies who'll fall for their argument to abolish the First Amendment is growing. Worse than that, I worry that too many of the rest of us will just sit on our hands and let the anti-Constitutional lynch mob have its way.

And, you know, politicians keep up with these trends too. They read the newspapers. They take polls. If they believe that the majority of Americans will fight to keep their rights, then the politicians won't mess with them. They'll even make speeches about how much they love the Constitution, and especially the First Amendment. But as soon as they figure that the people won't fight for their rights, they'll be leading the lynch mob and making speeches about the need to protect people from being offended or harmed by hateful speech.

And what I've just said applies to nearly all politicians and their camp followers, not just to the Clintonistas. It applies to Republicans and conservatives at least as much as it applies to Democrats and liberals. I have another newspaper article, with an essay by Robert Bork, the very conservative legal scholar who was hounded out of his Supreme Court nomination a few years ago because of his conservatism. Mr. Bork now says that we need to reinterpret the First Amendment, so that it does not protect hateful speech. I don't know what appointment Mr. Bork has his eye on now, but that's what the man is saying.

It all boils down to this: Nobody in this country, or anywhere else, has any inalienable rights: not the right to free speech or freedom of religion or assembly, not the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. There always will be scoundrels who will try to take away your rights if they believe they can get away with it. And there always will be fools who will let them do it. The only rights that we have, the only rights that we can depend on, are those that we are willing and able to fight for, to shed blood for. And that's what it's coming to in this country very soon.

Now you've heard it. Now I want you think about it. And then I want you to start getting ready for what's coming.

I'm very pleased by the really big increase in the number of responses to American Dissident Voices during the past few months. That's what we want: to get people to respond, to pay attention, to begin thinking, and to begin speaking out.
One of the things I often hear is that it's interesting to listen to American Dissident Voices and learn new things, but how does that help us solve the problems we're facing as a people? When will we begin putting up candidates for office so that we can begin making some changes in the way our society is headed? They say we must begin making changes very soon because the Jews and their collaborators are getting closer every day to their goal of a multiracial global plantation, where no one will be able to rebel. And they cite the things they can see happening around them: more and more non-Whites in the population everywhere; more and more Whites involved sexually with; and tighter and tighter government control on our lives, with the threat of an end to our Bill of Rights looming ever larger.

I answer by telling them that what is happening is not so much a shift of the general public in the direction the Jews are pushing as it is a growing schism in our society between the Jewish party and the party of those able to think for themselves. It is a growing division between the lemmings obediently stampeding toward the precipice and the people who are beginning to dig in their heels and say "Whoa! I don't want to go over that cliff!" And more and more people are aligning themselves with this second party. Furthermore, not all of them are White racists. There are non-White groups who are no more attracted to the idea of becoming serfs on the global plantation than we are. There are homosexuals who are not looking forward to living in a society which has a non-White majority. There are even people who call themselves "liberals" who are not in favor of replacing William Shakespeare with Jerry Springer and Beethoven with MTV. People of every stripe are aghast at the level to which public life in America has sunk in the Clinton era.

Of course, we shouldn't draw too much comfort from that observation, because the Jews are continuing to push their programs forward with the aid of their step'n'fetchits in the Congress and the White House. And as long as real power continues to be measured by the standards of electoral politics, we won't have any, because the lemmings will always outnumber the independent thinkers. But there may come a day when real power will be measured by other standards, and when the most feasible way of bringing about change won't involve putting up candidates for public office. But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves now.

The most important thing for us to do now is what we have been doing, and that is to help people understand what is happening to America, to the world, to our civilization, and to our people. I'm not talking about helping the lemmings understand. Lemmings never have understood anything and don't want to understand anything. Lemmings just want to do what they believe they're expected to do: whatever the other lemmings are doing. If you strapped a lemming in a chair and explained to him 14 times in the simplest possible language that if he keeps going in the same direction he'll go over a cliff, he still won't understand, and he won't care. To change the direction of a lemming you must persuade him that all the other lemmings are changing direction, and the only feasible way of doing that is to change the flavor of what he sees on television. There's not much chance of our acquiring control of the television networks any time soon, so we just have to accept the fact that the lemmings will continue happily toward the precipice for the time being.

But there are people who can understand and who want to understand, people who care about our civilization and about our people. Those are the ones we are having increasing success in reaching out to, in explaining things to, in helping develop their understanding. We need to continue doing that. Although we're getting a much larger response now than when we started, it needs to grow a lot more. So far we've reached only a relatively small portion of these independent-minded people. And we must do more than help them understand. We must persuade them to accept some responsibility. We must persuade them to be more than mere spectators. And if we can do these things -- if we can continue reaching more and more thoughtful people and help them to understand what is happening, and if we can persuade them to act on their understanding -- then we are coming closer to solving our problems. We are coming closer to having the power to change the course of events.

Understanding and a sense of responsibility are prerequisites for any other sort of activity, electoral or otherwise. We need to build a lot more understanding and a lot more sense of responsibility before we can have any reasonable expectation of winning an election.

There's one really good thing about the work we're doing now, and that is you can participate in it. You don't have to become a candidate for public office. You don't have to have your own radio program. You just have to be willing to help. You have to be willing to talk with your friends, with your relatives, with your co-workers, with the people you already know. I'm sure that not all of them are lemmings. I'm sure that some of them are reasonable and responsible people.

I can explain things in my radio show and this magazine, but you probably have friends who think they're too busy to listen to American Dissident Voices or read Free Speech. Or perhaps they just need the personal approach that you can give. Perhaps they need to know that someone they trust is concerned enough to try to help them understand. Or they may need to know that they are not alone in their Political Incorrectness.

Let me tell you something that can be really helpful in leading a friend to understanding: approach him with something very specific that you have reason to believe he will respond to with interest. Perhaps he's someone who has told you that he's not interested in politics and doesn't want to hear anything about the corruption in the government or about the Jewish control of the media. But there will still be something he is interested in. Start with that.

For example, some people -- women especially -- are interested in celebrities, in people that have an aura of glamour. You might approach such a friend with a comment about the Russian imperial family, whose remains finally were reburied in St. Petersburg in late July, 80 years after their murder by the communists. The czar's daughters, who were murdered with him, were beautiful, glamorous young women: Anastasia, Olga, Tatiana, and Maria -- all lovely girls. Legends about one of these girls -- the beautiful 17-year-old Princess Anastasia -- have been widely circulated ever since her murder. And their reburial a couple of weeks ago has sparked a number of new news stories and reminiscences about them.

One interesting thing about the butchering of the Russian imperial family that you're not likely to see in any of these news stories, however, is the fact that the head butcher was a Jew. His name was Jacob Yurovsky, and he carried out the murder of the czar and his family in an especially brutal and sadistic manner. You might bring that fact up in a conversation about the imperial family. And that fact then can lead the conversation into either of two very interesting areas. One of these areas centers on the fact that in a vast country like Russia with such a small Jewish minority, so many of the butchers of the Russian people just happened to be Jews, Lazar Kaganovich being a prime example.

The other conversational area that Jacob Yurovsky can lead you to is the control of our news and entertainment media. Why is it that your friend has never heard about Yurovsky's Jewishness or Kaganovich's Jewishness? Why are the Jews always portrayed as the innocent victims of Russian anti-Semitism, instead of the other way around? Could it have anything to do with the Jewish control of our news and entertainment media?

Does your friend need to have the atrocities committed against the Russian people by Jews like Yurovsky and Kaganovich tied in to something closer to home? How about the continuing flood of Jewish gangsters into America from the former Soviet Union? They circumvent our immigration laws and get in as "refugees from persecution," because the media, by keeping quiet about Jews such as Yurovsky and Kaganovich and about the Jewishness of organized crime in Russia, are able to maintain the popular delusion that Jews are persecuted in Russia. And because these Jewish gangsters get in they are better able to run their international trade in White sex slaves and sexually exploited children. Although the White slave trade and the child pornography business are headquartered in Israel, they depend heavily for their profitability on the Jews' ability to move freely from one country to another.

Does your friend know anything about the child pornography business? If he's capable of being shocked by anything, he'll be shocked by hearing a few of the facts about this horrible business. The same Jewish gangsters who trap poor, unemployed women from Russia and Ukraine into becoming sex slaves also procure children, film them being sexually abused, and sell the films to perverts around the world. Some of these films show babies as young as two years old being raped by adults. It's a big business, and though not all of the perverts who are the customers for child pornography are Jews, the people who run the child pornography racket are Jews. And that is why this racket is allowed to flourish with virtually no exposure from the mass media.

There have been a few hints about the child pornography business in the media very recently, however, in connection with other news events. For example, there was a United Press International story out of Amsterdam on July 17 about a distributor of child pornography who was murdered recently and about the thousands of photographs the police found in his home. The article also mentioned the distributor's connections to other distributors in Israel, Russia, Ukraine, and the United States. No mention of Jews, of course -- but believe me, the people who run this business are just as Jewish as the people who run the White slave trade.

Perhaps your friend has an interest in civil liberties: in things like freedom of speech. Then begin by talking with him about two men who were sent to prison in Switzerland just last week because one of them wrote a book the Jews don't like and the other one published the book. It sounds almost incredible that this could happen in a modern, civilized nation like Switzerland, but it did, because the Swiss people let themselves be tricked into accepting a law in 1995 -- just three years ago -- making it illegal to criticize Jews or to say anything the Jews find offensive. The Jews had mounted a big propaganda campaign to get this law passed, claiming that it would put an end to "hate" in Switzerland. They got all of their bought politicians and their bought Christian church leaders to speak in favor of the law. And in Switzerland, just as in the United States, the Jews have most of the politicians and the leading church spokesmen in their pockets. So they got their law passed in 1995, calling it an "anti-hate speech" law, and the Swiss felt very proud of themselves for being against "hate."

Then, having made it illegal to criticize them, the Jews launched their campaign to extort $7 billion in World War Two reparations from the Swiss. Pretty neat, wasn't it?

Swiss who understood that the Jewish demand for gold was extortion were afraid to say so publicly from fear of being prosecuted under the new "hate speech" law. And so the Jews have been able to move ahead with their extortion campaign against the Swiss without fear of having their wild claims for gold be contradicted by the muzzled Swiss. In late July, Swiss author Jügen Graf and his 78-year-old publisher Gerhard Förster were ordered to prison by a judge in Baden, Switzerland, under this new "hate speech" law because Graf wrote a book in which he stated that fewer than six million Jews were killed in the so-called "Holocaust." Graf didn't deny that the Germans killed some Jews; he just wrote that all the evidence indicates that fewer than six million were killed. And so the Jews complained that Graf was in effect calling them liars by refusing to accept their figure of six million killed, and by calling them liars was inciting hatred against them. So the judge ordered Graf and his publisher to prison.

Isn't that clever? You plan an extortion campaign against someone, but then before you make your extortion demands you persuade your intended victim to muzzle himself with a "hate speech" law, so that he can't defend himself against your extortion. That's what the Jews have done to the Swiss -- and that's what they're trying very hard now to do to Americans. They're campaigning for the same sort of "hate speech" laws to muzzle Americans that they're already using to muzzle the Swiss. And Bill Clinton is one of the biggest advocates of the new "hate" laws the Jews want for silencing American dissidents.

When three White ex-convicts killed a Black ex-convict in Texas by chaining him to the back of a truck and dragging him, Clinton seized on this bit of drunken hooliganism as a reason why America needs a Federal "hate" law similar to Switzerland's. If you noticed the details of the way the media handled the news of the Texas killing, you can see the collaboration between Clinton and the media Jews in pushing for a Federal "hate" law. For example, the Black who was killed was, like the three men who killed him, a criminal, an ex-convict. But most news reports carefully avoided mentioning that fact. Instead they described the Black as "disabled," almost creating the impression that he was confined to a wheelchair or at least on crutches, when as a matter of fact he was walking along a road with no apparent disability when he accepted a ride from the men who later killed him. It's clear that the media were trying as hard as they could to make this Black ex-con into a sympathetic figure, so that they and Mr. Clinton could use his death as an argument for a Federal "hate" law. One might think they would have picked a better example of a racially motivated crime to use as an argument. After all, racially motivated assaults, murders, and rapes happen every day in America's cities. However, they needed a crime with White criminals and a Black victim, and those don't happen very often, so they had to take what they could get. It gives you a pretty clear indication of who it is that they are so eager to silence with their new Federal "hate" law. It isn't the Blacks.

It may seem incredible to reasonable people that the government could hope to end hatred in our society by passing a law. But it's not reasonable people who really count in this matter: it's the lemmings, and they're ready to believe whatever the government or the mass media tell them. And of course, it's not really hatred that the government and the media Jews hope to end with a Federal "hate" law. It's dissent. They want to muzzle reasonable people in America the way they've muzzled them in Switzerland.

To help your friend understand what's happening, don't try to explain everything to him at once. Start with a specific thing you believe he'll be interested in: the murder of the Romanovs by a Jewish Bolshevik; the growing power of Jewish organized crime in America and its control of the international trade in child pornography; the threat to Americans' freedom of speech by the Clinton government's push for a Federal "hate" law in this country like the one in Switzerland. Give him specific facts. Tell him where he can check it out for himself. For example, National Vanguard Books carries The Last Days of the Romanovs on the murder of the Czar's family and The New Ethnic Mobs on modern organized crime. The conviction and sentencing of the Swiss author and publisher were reported by the Associated Press on July 21. You can go to any large public library and find the Associated Press story for yourself. Then show it to your friend, if that's what he's interested in.

I'll keep telling you about things like these, but you do your part too.