Thursday, December 31, 2015
Sunday, December 27, 2015
"There is no doubt that the...Jews aided the Persians with all the men they could muster, and that the help they gave was considerable. Once Jerusalem was in Persian hands a terrible massacre of Christians took place, and the Jews are accused of having taken the lead in this massacre." (A History of Palestine from 135 A.D. to Modern Times, James Parkes, p. 81; The Iron Curtain Over America, John Beaty, p. 194).
"Christianity, therefore is unhistoric and unmoral." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, p. 121).
"The Jews were now free to indulge in their most fervent fantasies of mass murder of helpless victims. Christians were dragged from their beds, tortured and killed. Some were actually sliced to pieces, bit by bit, while others were branded with hot irons, their eyes poked out to induce unbearable pain. Others were placed in boxes with only their heads, hands and legs sticking out. Then hungry rats were placed in the boxes to gnaw upon their bodies. Some were nailed to the ceiling by their fingers or by their feet, and left hanging until they died of exhaustion. Others were chained to the floor and left hanging until they died of exhaustion. Others were chained to the floor and hot lead poured into their mouths. Many were tied to horses and dragged through the streets of the city, while Jewish mobs attacked them with rocks and kicked them to death. Christian mothers were taken to the public square and their babies snatched from their arms. A red Jewish terrorist would take the baby, hold it by the feet, head downward and demand that the Christian mother deny Christ. If she would not, he would toss the baby into the air, and another member of the mob would rush forward and catch it on the tip of his bayonet.
Pregnant Christian women were chained to trees and their babies cut out of their bodies. There were many places of public execution in Russia during the days of the revolution, one of which was described by the American Rohrbach Commission: 'The whole cement floor of the execution hall of the Jewish Cheka of Kiev was flooded with blood; it formed a level of several inches. It was a horrible mixture of blood, brains and pieces of skull. All the walls were bespattered with blood. Pieces of brains and of scalps were sticking to them. A gutter of 25 centimeters wide by 25 centimeters deep and about 10 meters long was along its length full to the top with blood.
Some bodies were disemboweled, others had limbs chopped off, some were literally hacked to pieces. Some had their eyes put out, the head, face and neck and trunk were covered with deep wounds. Further on, we found a corpse with a wedge driven into its chest. Some had no tongues. In a corner we discovered a quantity of dismembered arms and legs belonging to no bodies that we could locate.'" (Defender Magazine, October 1933).
"The time will come when all Christians will become mature, they will all embrace Judaism, and they will all justify themselves by deeds. Then the Christians will become Jews." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, p. 174).
"With deep insight into history Jesus foresaw what would happen to the Christians, that they would waste the treasure with harlots, but in due time the Christians will come back to Jehovah, and Jehovah will be glad to receive them." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, p 176).
"A rabbi cannot teach you your Christian duty to the Jewish people."
"Jewish Rabbis Should Not Teach Christians; in the ecumenical mania that grips the churches, Judeophiles especially are scurrying about trying to outdo one another in inviting Jewish speakers to their pulpits. It's almost a fetish. While darkly contemplating this prima facie evidence of blissful ignorance, a refreshing breath of oxygen floated across this writer's desk. It came from an unexpected, therefore a more greatly appreciated, source. The headline of the newsletter asked this question: 'Should your Church Invite the Rabbi? In the center of the front page the box below appeared:
The newsletter was from Jews for Jesus. The article was written by Moishe Rosen, founder of Jews for Jesus. Although the organization is operated by 'Jewish Christians' some of whom are probably Zionists, Mr. Rosen did a good job in advising churches that they should not invite rabbis to teach them. In response to a woman whose church had invited a rabbi, he stated: '...I will first say that I am very pleased that your church cares about the Jewish people. I'm impressed that your minister has become friends with the local rabbi. As always, I appreciate any kindness to the Jewish people because I know how very much Jews need demonstrations of Christian kindness. Nevertheless, in all honesty, I'm chagrined that the rabbi was invited to speak at the church. He is a teacher who wants you to learn why he doesn't believe in Jesus. He will tell you: 'If you really respect the Jewish people, you must not proselytize or presume that we Jews need your religion.' How could I be pleased about the church receiving that message?"
"Christianity does not concern itself about the material world its sole concern is immortality; it does not concern itself about conduct, its sole concern is faith." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, p. 118).
"I am gong to show that real religious persecution is uniquely Jewish...In the time of Justinian, in the sixth century, the Jews massacred Christians in Caesarea and destroyed their churches. When Stephanus, the governor attempted to defend the Christians, the Jews fell on him and slew him. In 608 A.D., the Jews of Antioch fell upon their Christians neighbors and killed them with fire and sword...About 614 A.D., the Persians advanced upon Palestine and the Jews, after joining their standard, massacred the Christians and destroyed their churches. Ninety thousand Christians perished in Jerusalem alone." (The International Jew, Henry Ford (1922), pp. 171, 173; Who is Esau-Edom? Charles A. Weisman, p.100)
"This regenerated and true Christianity must identify itself with Marxism and Communism." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, p. 124).
"Between the Christians and the Communists there is a life and death struggle because the Christians regard their idea of co-operation as being right, true and good, while the idea of co-operation of the Communists the Christians regard as wrong, false and evil." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, p. 136).
"I shall use such influence as I have in emphasizing the basic truths common to all denominations, in lowering denominational barriers and in promoting effective cooperation among Christians of whatever creed." (John D. Rockefeller, The Messenger of the Covenant, December 1935 issue; And Men Wept, by Catherine Palfrey Baldwin, p. 46).
On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Elazar wrote: "For my Jewish brethren searching for a Biblical basis for sanctioning homosexuality, I provide you with words from Rabbis Marc Angel, Hillel Goldberg and Pinchas Stopler in their joint article published in the Winter, 1992-93 edition of Jewish Action Magazine;" Well, here's another viewpoint: Bible Review, December 1993, p. 11 DOES THE BIBLE PROHIBIT HOMOSEXUALITY? by Rabbi Jacob Milgrom: "The Biblical prohibition is addressed only to Israel. It is incorrect to apply it on a universal scale.
This past Yom Kippur, September 25, 1993, my synagogue invited me to explain the afternoon scriptural reading, the list of forbidden sexual liaisons in Leviticus 18. I chose to focus on what is today one of the most frequently quoted passages in the entire Bible, "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).
What I said may be both good news and bad news to my Christian friends, depending on their position on gay and lesbian rights. This Biblical prohibition is addressed only to the Jews. Non-Jews are affected only if they reside in the Holy Land, but not elsewhere (see the closing exhortation in Leviticus 18, verses 24-30). Thus, it is incorrect to apply this prohibition on a universal scale.
But I spoke to my fellow Jews, who are required to observe this prohibition. What is the rationale for this prohibition? In a previous column, I noted that the Bible's impurity rules are part of a symbol system representing the forces of life and death. Israel is required to avoid these impurities and adhere to the laws commanded by God, who promotes the forces of life. Thus in the same chapter we read, "You shall heed my statutes and my rules, by doing them one shall live" (Leviticus 18:5). A man who discharges semen, whether intentionally or otherwise, is declared impure and must purify himself by bathing (a sort of re-baptism) before he is permitted to enter the Temple or touch sacred (sacrificial) food (Leviticus 15:16-18). Why? Because semen stands for life, and the loss of semen symbolizes the loss of life.
Note also that in the entire list of forbidden sexual unions, THERE IS NO PROHIBITION AGAINST LESBIANISM. Can it be that lesbianism did not exist in ancient times or that Scripture was unaware of its existence? Lesbians existed and flourished, as attested in an old (pre-Israelite)
Babylonian text and in the work of the lesbian poet Sappho (born c. 612 B.C.E., during the time of the First Temple), who came from the island of Lesbos (hence lesbianism). But there is a fundamental difference between the homosexual acts of men and women. IN LESBIANISM THERE IS NO SPILLING OF SEED. Thus life is not symbolically lost, and therefore lesbianism is not prohibited in the Bible.
My argument ostensibly can be countered by a more comprehensive biblical injunction. The very first commandment, given to Adam and repeated to Noah, is "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1,7). The descendants of Noah--the entire human race--are duty-bound to fulfill this commandment. But the truth is that we have not only filled the earth, we have over-filled it. This does not mean, however, that the commandment should be thought of as no longer in force--especially among Jews, who have lost a third of their members in our lifetime. I recall an incident during a premarital interview from the early years of my rabbinate. The starry-eyed bride declared her noble intention to have twelve children to compensate for the tragic loss of six million killed in the Holocaust. I gasped, "Must you do it all by yourself?"
I have since come to regret my flippant reply. This couple regarded their forthcoming marriage as a sacrament not just between themselves, but with the >Jewish people. The problem has worsened for American Jews. Because intermarriage is rife and the Jewish birth rate is low, American Jewry, once at zero population growth, has dipped into the minus column. Were it not for a steady stream of converts, the extinction of American Jewry would be even more imminent. For us the divine command, "Be fruitful and multiply" is truly in force.
To Jewish homosexuals I offer an unoriginal solution. As compensation for your loss of seed, adopt children. Although adoption was practiced in the ancient world (as attested in Babylonian law), there is no Biblical procedure or institution of adoption. As a result the institution of adoption is absent from rabbinic jurisprudence. Yet there are isolated cases of a kind of pseudo-adoption in the Bible. For example, Abraham, long childless, complains to God that Eliezer of Damascus, his steward, will inherit him (Genesis 15:2). And barren Rachel beseeches her husband Jacob, "Here is my maid Bilhah--go into her that she may bear on my knees and that through her I too may have children" (Genesis 30:3). Adoption is certainly a possibility today.
Lesbian couples have an additional advantage. Not only do they not violate biblical law, but through artificial insemination each can become the natural mother of her children.
Thus from the Bible we can infer the following: Lesbians, presumably half of the world's homosexual population, are not mentioned. More than ninety-nine percent of the gays, namely non-Jews, are not addressed. This leaves the small number of male Jewish gays subject to this >prohibition. If they are biologically or psychologically incapable of procreation, adoption provides a solution. I hope the Eternal, in love and compassion, will then reckon their spilled seed as producing fruit. Jacob Milgrom." (Bible Review, a publication of the Biblical Archeology Society 3000 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20008, 202 387 8888
"The doctrines which the Jews had been spreading throughout the land for years could not but have helped to undermine the Church's power." (Rabbi Lewis Browne, Stranger than Fiction, p. 222).
"Protestantism includes every type of religious thought and organization from 'high church' Anglicanism to high-principled Quakerism, from ecstatic Methodism to relentlessly intellectual Unitarism. Only slowly, and with many pangs is even Protestantism shaking off the religion about Christ." (Rabbi Lewis Browne, This Believing World, p. 300).
"Christianity has always looked on sex as in some way indecent and sinful; and for that reason Christians cannot possibly associate a truly religious nature 'with an unsuppressed libido. But that is more than a prejudice.'" (Rabbi Lewish Browne, This Believing World, p. 326).
"One of the finest things ever done by the mob was the Crucifixion of Christ. Intellectually it was a splendid gesture. But trust the mob to bungle the job. If I'd had charge of executing Christ, I'd have handled it differently. You see, what I'd have done was had him shipped to Rome and fed him to the lions. They could never have made a savior out of mincement!" (Rabbi Ben Hecht)
The Rabbis of Judaism understand this just as do the leaders in the Christian movement. Rabbi Moshe Maggal of the National Jewish Information Service said in 1961 when the term Judeo-Christian was relatively new, "There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian religion. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other." (National Jewish Information Service).
"It is useless to insist upon the differences which proceed from this opposition between the two different views in the respective attitudes of the pious Jew and the pious Christian regarding the acquisition of wealth. While the pious Christian, who had been guilty of usury, was tormented on his death-bed by the tortures of repentance and was ready to give up all that he owned, for the possessions unjustly acquired were scorching his soul, the pious Jews, at the end of his days looked with affection upon his coffers and chests filled to the top with the accumulated sequins taken during his long life from poor Christians and even from poor Moslems; a sight which could cause his impious heart to rejoice, for every penny of interest enclosed therein was like a sacrifice offered to his God." (Wierner Sombart, Les Juifs et la vie economique, p. 286; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 164)
"Our adversaries, numerous and formidable, will say, and will have the right to say, that our Principe CrÇateur is identical with the Principe GÇnÇrateur of the Indians and Egyptians, and may fitly be symbolized as it was symbolized anciently, by the linage...To accept this in lieu of a personal God is to abandon Christianity and worship of Jehovah and return to wallow in the styles of Paganism." (Albert Pike, Supreme Council of the 33rd degree, New York, August 15, 1876).
"The Jew...is not content merely to destroy Christianity, but he preaches the gospel of Judaism; he not only assails the Catholic or the Protestant faith, but he incites to the unbelief, and then imposes on those whose faith he has undermined his own conception of the world, of morality and of life. He is engaged in his historic mission, the annihilation of the religion of Christ." (Benard Lazare, Antisemitism: It's History and Causes, Translated by Britons Publishing Co., London (1967), p. 158).
"The Christians are always singing about the blood. Let us give them enough of it! Let us cut their throats and drag them over the altar! And let them drown in their own blood! I dream of the day when the last priest is strangled on the guts of the last preacher." (Jewish Chairman of the American Communist Party, Gus Hall).
"Wars are the Jews harvest, for with them we wipe out the Christians and get control of their gold. We have already killed 100-million of them, and the end is not yet." (Chief Rabbi in France, in 1859, Rabbi Reichorn).
"Israel won the war [WW I]; we made it; we thrived on it; we profited from it. It was our supreme revenge on Christianity." (The Jewish Ambassador from Austria to London, Count Mensdorf, 1918).
"We shall drive the Christians into war by exploiting their national vanity and stupidity. They will then massacre each other, thus giving room for our own people." (Rabbi Reichorn, in Le Contemporain, July 1st, 1880)
"Dear beloved brethren in Moses: We have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great pain to hear it as yourselves. The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following: As for what you say that the King of France obliges you to become Christians: do it; since you cannot do otherwise...As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your goods make your sons merchants, that little by little they may despoil the Christians of theirs. As for what you say about their attempts on your lives; make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christian lives. As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues; make your sons canons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches. As for the many other vexations you complain of: arrange that you sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix themselves up with the affairs of State, in order that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them. Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will find by experience that, humiliated as you are, you will reach the actuality of power." (Constantinople Elders of Jewry).
"The confusion of the average Christian comes from the action of the clergy. Confusion creates doubt! Doubt brings loss of confidence! Loss of confidence brings loss of interest! There need be no confusion in the minds of Christians concerning the fundamentals of the faith. It would not exist of the clergy were not 'aiding and abetting' their worst enemies [Jews]. Many clergymen are their [Jews] allies, without realizing it, while other have become deliberate 'male prostitutes' to their cause.
When Christians see their leaders in retreat which can only bring defeat they are confused and afraid. To stop this surrender, the clergy must make an about face immediately and take a stand against the invisible and intangible ideological war which is subversively being waged against the Christian faith." (Facts Are Facts, Dr. Benjamin Freedman who was born a Jew and died a Christian).
"The strongest supporters of Judaism cannot deny that Judaism is anti-Christian." (Jewish World, March 15, 1924)
"I am devoting my lecture in this seminar to a discussion of the possibility that we are now entering a Jewish century, a time when the spirit of the community, the non-ideological blend of the emotional and rational and the resistance to categories and forms will emerge through the forces of anti-nationalism to provide us with a new kind of society. I call this process the Judaization of Christianity because Christianity will be the vehicle through which this society becomes Jewish." (Rabbi Martin Siegel, New York Magazine, p. 32, January 18, 1972)
The Rabbis of Judaism understand this just as do the leaders in the Christian movement. Rabbi Moshe Maggal of the National Jewish Information Service said in 1961 when the term Judeo-Christian was relatively new, "There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian religion. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other." (National Jewish Information Service, 6412 W. Olympic Blvd. L.A. CA).
"The current expression 'Judeo-Christian' is an error which has altered the course of universal history by the confusion it has sown in men's mind, if by it one is meant to understand the Jewish origin of Christianity; for by abolishing the fundamental distinctions between Jewish and Christian messianism, it seeks to bring together two ideas that are radically in opposition. By laying the accent exclusively on the 'Christian' idea to the detriment of the 'Judean' it conjures away monotheistic messianism - a valuable discipline at all levels of thought, and reduces it to a purely confessional messianism, preoccupied like Christian messianism with the salvation of the individual soul. If the term 'Judeo-Christian' does point to a common origin, there is no doubt that it is a most dangerous idea.
It is based on a 'contrdictio in adjecto' which has set the path of history on the wrong track. It links in one breath two ideas which are completely irreconcilable, it seeks to demonstrate that there is no difference between day and night or hot and cold or Black and White, and thus introduces a fatal element of confusion to a basis on which some, nevertheless, are endeavoring to construct a civilization. Christianity offers to the world a limited messianism which it wishes to impose as the only valid one...Even Spinoza, who was further than any other thinker from the historic messianism of Israel, wrote: 'As for what certain churches say, that God assumed human nature, I must confess that this seems to me as absurd as saying that a circle assumed the shape of a square...'
The dogmatic exclusiveness professed by Christianity must finally end...It is the obstinate Christian claim to be the sole heir to Israel which propagates-anti-Semitism. This scandal must terminate sooner or later; the sooner it goes, the sooner the world will be rid of the issue of lies in which anti-Semitism shrouds itself." (Joshua Jehouda, l'Antisemitisme Miroir du Monde, pp. 135-136; Judaism and the Vatican, Vicomte Leon de Poncins, pp. 30-31).
"A Jew remains a Jew even though he changes his religion; a Christian which would adopt the Jewish religion would not become a Jew, because the quality of a Jew is not in the religion but in the race. A Free thinker and Atheist always remains a Jew." (Jewish World, London December 14, 1922)
"A Jew remains a Jew even though he changes his religion; a Christian which would adopt the Jewish religion would not become a Jew, because the quality of a Jew is not in the religion but in the race. A Free thinker and Atheist always remains a Jew." (Jewish World, London December 14, 1922)
"The inward thought of Moscow (the Jews) indeed appears to be that for twenty centuries while humanity has been following Christ, it has been on the wrong word. It is now high time to correct this error of direction by creating a new moral code, a new civilization, founded on quite different principles (Talmudic Principles). And it appears that it is this idea which the communist leaders wished to symbolize when a few months ago they proposed to erect in Moscow a Statue to Judas Iscariot, to Judas, this great honest misunderstood man, who hanged himself, not at all, as it is usually and foolishly believed, because of remorse for having sold his master, but because of despair, poor man, at the thought that humanity would pay for by innumerable misfortunes the wrong path which it was about to follow." (J. and J. Tharaud, Causerie sur Israel, p. 38; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, pp. 143-144)
Thursday, December 24, 2015
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Sunday, December 20, 2015
More Men and Women Must Form Successful Families
by Dr. William Pierce
Another friend of mine recently went through a very traumatic marital breakup. The breakup was worse than most because my friend and his wife have three small children. When I took an inventory of all of the people I know, well over half of them had had at least one failed marriage. Most of the ones I know who have never had a divorce are those who are over 70. I guess that about 60 per cent of my younger friends have been divorced one or more times. And I guess that the rising national statistics on divorce agree with this personal inventory: as time goes on, it’s getting harder and harder to keep marriages together.
So, what are the reasons for this? Why are men and women having a harder time getting along? I’ve thought about this problem for quite a while, and I believe that I understand the reasons. Some of the reasons for the decline of marital stability are economic, some are social, and some are psychological. Historically, marriage has been based on the bedrock economic fact that a well-defined division of labor results in greater survivability. If a man and a woman worked together as a team, with the woman keeping the home front under control while the man brought home the bacon and chased the wolves away from the door, both gained a competitive advantage over unattached singles and were more likely to survive and prosper - not to mention the fact that their children were far more likely to survive than those engendered by unattached individuals.
This economic basis for marriage survived even the enormous social changes brought about byte Industrial Revolution, but economic developments in this century began undermining it. There was the large-scale recruitment of married women into the non-domestic work force during the past 60 years, at the same time many men found that their income alone could no longer support a family. Another development was the advent of the welfare state.
When employers came to regard their employees simply as interchangeable economic units, they no longer could see any reason why they shouldn’t hire married women, even married women with children, for any sort of work women could handle - especially since doing so increased the size of the labor pool and lowered the price of labor. The transition of America from an industrial economy to a service economy during the past 30 years or so has greatly accelerated this tendency by decreasing the percentage of jobs which require a man’s strength.
At the same time that the percentage of married women employed outside the home was rising from nearly zero 60 years ago to its present level of around 70 per cent, technology was greatly reducing the burden of maintaining a home. Sixty years ago clothes were washed by hand with a washing board and a washtub. Modern fabrics hadn’t been invented, and so everything that was washed then had to be ironed. Homes didn’t have electric or gas refrigerators, and only those in urban areas where there was an icehouse even had iceboxes. Kitchen work took substantially more time and effort, and so did shopping; there was no such thing as popping a frozen dinner into the microwave.
In other words, at the same time new employment opportunities for women meant that they weren’t as economically dependent on their husbands as in the past, men were finding that a woman’s work in the home was less essential than it had been: with all of the modern appliances and shortcuts, a man could get by in reasonable comfort alone. The introduction of the welfare state after the Second World War meant that a woman dissatisfied with married life didn’t even have to worry about finding employment if she left her husband.
A century ago couples had fights just like they do today, but they had strong economic motivesfor making peace and keeping the union together. Today the tendency is just to announce, „Idon’t have to put up with this crap,“ and walk out the door.
Paralleling these economic changes were social changes which also worked to the detriment of marriage. A century ago, when most of us lived in a rural environment or small towns, there was strong social pressure on a couple to stay together. A divorce was almost scandalous. In today’s urban environment this social pressure and the accompanying stigma of divorce are entirely absent.
After the Second World War the rise of feminism and so-called „women’s liberation“ also took their toll on marital stability. The feminists asserted that women were essentially the same as men, except for a few minor anatomical details, and that women didn’t need men in order to live a complete and fulfilling life. They insisted on being treated just like men. And of course, their cause was taken up by the government and by the Jewish media, which resulted in their doctrines influencing many otherwise sensible women.
Women consequently lost their special status. When they asserted that they no longer needed the protection or the support of men, many men took them at face value. Men responded by deciding that they no longer had a special obligation or responsibility to support or protect a woman.
Deciding to shed a wife became much like deciding to change roommates. Feminism has eroded the traditional complementary relationship between men and women, which was a relationship based on their natural differences, and tried to replace it with equality, which is not in accord with reality. The result of this failed effort has been very traumatic for both men and women. In many cases it has turned natural affection to hostility on both sides. Just as many women have responded by becoming less feminine, many men have become less masculine. It has played havoc with the institution of marriage.
So what’s to be done?
Unfortunately, about all we can do in the short run is try to minimize the trauma for ourselves as individuals. If you’re a man, when you’re looking for a mate steer clear of women who have been tainted by feminism; and if you’re a woman, be on your guard against men who have been “sensitized“ by the feminists.
In the long run, we can make the institution of marriage healthy again only after we have cured the social and economic problems in our society. One of the easiest things we can do is simply stop promoting the false and destructive doctrine of feminism. When our government, our schools, and our media recognize that men and women are different and complementary members of our society and have fundamentally different roles to fill, we’ll be a long way ahead.
Fixing the economic problems which beset marriage will be more difficult. It is hard to take women out of factories and offices and put them back in the home when most families have become accustomed to a life-style which requires two incomes to maintain. One of the reasons our grandmothers were able to stay at home and raise their children instead of dropping them off at a day-care center on the way to work was that our grandparents managed to do without many things that have come to be thought of as necessities today, so that one income was sufficient for them. Outlawing credit cards and other forms of borrowing certainly would cut consumption and help more people get by on one income, but that probably would cause a revolution all by itself, because our people have forgotten the old way of paying for things first and then having them.
We don’t need to go back to using washing boards and washtubs, but we can look forward to building a new society in which economic policy and employment policy are made subordinate to the primary goal of promoting the racial and spiritual health of our people. One thing we can do is get rid of government welfare programs - no food stamps, no subsidized rents, no welfare checks, nothing. If churches want to set up soup kitchens or flop houses for the homeless, that’s their business, but no one should be forced to pay for the support of those who won’t work, male or female - nor should the dole be an attractive alternative to working or to keeping a marriage together.
And a career should not be quite as attractive or available an alternative to marriage for young women as it is now. Simply doing away with the government-imposed requirements for hiring and promoting women and leaving employers free to hire whom they choose will help a lot in this direction. And women could just forget about careers as soldiers.
We don’t need governmental coercion to make marriage healthy again. We just need an end to the governmental programs which have made it unhealthy. Without feminist propaganda and without government interference, the instincts of men and women will do most of what needs to be done to get things back on a healthy track again. Their inherently different natures will reassert themselves again. Perhaps we can’t make things quite as sound as they were a century ago when most of us lived in much smaller communities, but we can make them a lot better than they are now.
Whenever I talk about the things we need to do to make a better future for our people, I hear many people telling me, „Oh, you can’t do that. You can’t just take the welfare class off the dole. They’ll riot. They’ll burn the cities. And you can’t expect women to give up their careers and become housewives. You can’t just take away all of the privileges the government has given them. You’ll lose their support if you try to do that”.
Well, let me assure you, with a healthy government in place, the welfare class will not riot – at least, not more than once. We know how to deal with rioters. All it takes is will power. It will be a good training exercise for our military people. That’s not a hard problem at all.
As for losing the support of women, I’m sure that will be true in some cases, because the enemies of our people have convinced many of them that being a housewife or a mother is a fate worse than death. Many of them believe that they absolutely have to be fighter pilots or corporate executives. And I’m not proposing making a law that they can’t be corporate executives if they want to. I’m just saying that we shouldn’t pump them full of propaganda to convince them that that’s what they should be. And we shouldn’t have laws which give them an artificial advantage in becoming corporate executives. I believe that the institution of marriage can tolerate a few female executives: just not quite so many as we have today.
One thing I must admit: it would be easier not to do anything, just to leave things as they are. If we just keep feeding the welfare class, then we don’t have to machine-gun them when they start demanding what they think they’re entitled to. And if we leave the government quotas alone, many feminists won’t hate us as much for trying to take something away from them.
But, you know, leaving things as they are really isn’t an option. If we do nothing, then our people will die. Our race will become extinct, and the earth will be inherited by the savages and degenerates of the non-White world. The birthrate for White women in America is far below the replacement level. There are fewer White Americans with every passing year. The White birthrate has fallen below the level necessary for replacement for pretty much the same reasons that the divorce rate has gone up. As more women have left the home and joined the work force, they have decided to have fewer children. Children are a hardship on mothers who are obliged to hold down a full-time job outside the home. Children can lower a father’s standard of living. Worse, the women most susceptible to feminist propaganda, the ones most likely to choose a career instead of motherhood, tend to be the brightest and most capable, the ones who most need to have children and pass on their genes to the next generation.
So we really have no choice in the matter. We either start having and raising more healthy White babies, or we die. Our race dies. Our country dies.
We will do what we have to do. We don’t want to be unpopular, we don’t want to make anyone hate us, but we will if we must. Those who hate us will be those who hate our people and want our people to die, or who have become so self-centered, so individualistic, so alienated and rootless that they don’t care what happens to our people, so long as it doesn’t inconvenience them personally. Let them hate us. It is a mark of honor, a mark of distinction.
The truly unfortunate fact now is that those who hate our people and want us to die are in control of most of the organs of influence, the media of influence. On our side we have American Dissident Voices and we have a growing presence on the Internet, but those who hate us have nearly everything else. They have the television networks, and they have Hollywood and Madison Avenue, and they have the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, and Time and Newsweek, and they have all of the slick, trendy, shallow, feminist-oriented magazines available at every magazine rack. Because they control the media, they also control the government. No politician, from Bill Clinton down to the least significant Congressman, dares to contradict them.
If we are ever to have any hope of making the institution of marriage healthy again, any hope of getting the White birthrate up to the replacement level again, any hope of keeping our people from becoming extinct, then we must gain for ourselves a much greater influence: eventually more influence than the enemies of our people have. The only way to do this is to build our own media for communicating with our people: to reach more of our people with American Dissident Voices broadcasts, Free Speech, and our other media.
Our enemies would like for everyone to believe that the only people who are concerned about the things I have talked about today - the decay of our marriage institution and the declining White birthrate - are what they like to call „right wing extremists“ or „White supremacists.“ Ordinary people, they will tell you, don’t share my concerns, my feeling that we must do something about what is happening to our people.
But our enemies are wrong. I know that a great many thoughtful people share my concerns. I know that a great many decent people are just as distressed as I am about what has happened to our marriage institution. I know that a great many of our most intelligent and perceptive people are as alarmed as I am over the catastrophic decline in the White birthrate. Not all of them have been quite so rude as I have in placing the blame for these things where it belongs. Not all of them are willing to be shrieked at by the controlled media as „anti-Semites“ and „racists,“ so they keep quiet. But they are concerned; they are distressed.
My task - our task - is to persuade them to speak up, to persuade them to give voice to their concerns, to stop letting themselves be intimidated by those who want to destroy our people. And it also is to make many more of our people think about these things. So many of our people today are so busy, so wrapped up in their own affairs, that they haven’t taken time to look at what is happening to our society and to think about it, to try to understand its long-range implications: its implications for their children and their grandchildren. I believe that when they do understand these implications, they too will share my concerns.
We need to continue talking with them, to talk with more and more of them. We need to get our radio program on more and more stations and our publications read by more and more people. Everything counts on it. You can help. I hope that you will.