Thursday, December 31, 2015
Sunday, December 27, 2015
Jews and Christianity
Part I
"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
David Duke on Donald Trump!
Dr. David Duke discusses Donald Trump and why his candidacy is
important.
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Sunday, December 20, 2015
Marriage and White Survival
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)