Friday, October 30, 2015

Jews and Non-Jews

"Years of observation and thought have given increasing strength to the belief that we Jews stand apart from you gentiles, that a primal duality breaks the humanity I know into two distinct parts; that this duality is a fundamental, and that all differences among you gentiles are trivialities compared with that which divided all of you from us." (Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, p. 12)

"You may even have Jews in your midst who did not learn their way of life from us, and did not inherit it from a Jewish forebear. We may have authentic gentiles in our midst: these single protests are of no account; they are extreme and irrelevant variations." (Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, p. 21).

"I do not believe that the primal difference between gentile and Jew is reconcilable. You and we may come to an understanding, never to a reconciliation. There will be irritation between us as long as we are in intimate contact. For nature and constitution and vision divide us from all of you forever." (Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, p. 23).

"You have your way of life, we ours. In your system of life we are essentially without 'honor.' In our system of life you are essentially without morality. In your system of life we must forever appear graceless; to us you must forever appear godless." (Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, p. 34).

"According to Jewish belief, the Jewish People constitutes a species of their its own...i.e., a special, separate act of Creation by the Almighty. 'The thought of creating the Jewish People preceded every other thought' of the Almighty when creating the Universe according to the teaching of Rabbi Samuel bar Isaac." (Bereshith Rabba 1,5)

"When Germany and England and America will long have lost their present identity or purpose, we shall still be strong in ours." (Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, p. 111).

"Judaism, which was destroyed politically (as a result of the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.), went forth into the great world. It adapted its possessions to its wanderings. I once compared it to an army going to war, a 'movable State.'
Jews were compelled to smuggle their goods across from frontier to frontier; so they chose abstract wares, easy to stubble; and this gave them ability, despite ghettos and restrictions, to enter everywhere; and so it is that the Hebrew people have penetrated everywhere.
The argument is that Judaism, by penetrating among the Gentiles (IN CHRISTIANS GUISE or otherwise), has gradually undermined the remnants of paganism. Such penetration has not been without deliberate Jewish conniving in the shape of assistance bestowed in a thousand ways, devices and disguises. It has been affected in great measure by crypto-Jews, who have permeated Christianity and spoken through the mouth of Christianity.
By these devices of their Jewish blood; and owing to an instance for 'requital,' they have gradually induced Christianity to accept what was left in it of pagan elements as their own; and it is they who, in principle (even though they are called by great Gentile names), of Democracy, of Socialism, and of Communism. All this achievement...has come about chiefly through unknown anonymous Jews, Jews in secret, either crypto-Jews who mingled among the Gentiles and nurtured great thinkers from among them; or, through the influence of Jews, who, in the great crises of liberty and freedom, have stood behind the scenes; or through Jewish teachers and scholars from the time of the Middle Ages.
It was disciples of Jewish teachers who headed the Protestant movements. These dogs, these haters of the Jews have a keen nose. In truth, Jewish influence in Germany is powerful. It is impossible to ignore it. Marx was a Jew. His manner of thought was Jewish. His keenness of intellect was Jewish; and one of his forebears was a most distinguished rabbi endowed with a powerful mind. The newspapers, under Jewish control, obviously served as an auxiliary in all movements in favor of freedom. Not in vain have Jews been drawn toward journalism. In their hands it became a weapon highly fitted to meet their needs...
The Gentiles have at last realized this secret, that Judaism has gradually penetrated them like a drug. The Gentile nature is in revolt, and is trying to organize the final battle. Christianity is trying to organize its last war against Judaism. And there is no doubt that this warfare...is being waged specifically against Democracy, against Socialism. This is another world wide warfare again against the forces of Judaism. I venture to think that Socialism in its highest form is the fruit of the Jewish spirit, and the fruit of the world outlook of the prophets. It is they who were the first Socialists.
War is now being waged against us {but unknown to most of Christianity. Because God's People refuse to accept knowledge and recognize the enemy}, against Judaism, not in our own land, but in the great outer world where we are scattered. They would 'smoke us out' of all the cracks and crannies where we have hidden. They would exterminate us like bacilli, and be rid of us." (N.H. Bialik, in an address delivered at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, May 11, 1933, which appeared in Lines of Communication, Palestine, July, 1933)

"The Western mind is incapable of thinking religiously." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, a Jew, p. 185).

"The Universal Israelite Alliance...addresses itself to every type of worship. It wishes to penetrate all religions, as it has found access to all countries...Let all men of enlightenment, without distinction of sec, find a means of union in the Universal Israelite Association, whose aims are so noble, so broad, and so highly civilizing...To reach out a friendly hand to all who, although born in a different worship from ours, offer us the hand of fellowship, acknowledging that all religions which are based on morality and acknowledge God ought to be friendly towards one another: thus to destroy the barriers separating what is destined one day to be united, that is the grand supreme object of our Alliance...I summon to our Association our brethren of every form of worship. Let them come to us...Our grand mission is to put the Jewish population in touch with the authorities in every country...to make our voices heard in the cabinets of ministers and in the ears of princes, whatever be the religion that is despised, persecuted, or attacked." (Archives Israelites Universelle, tom. xxv, pp. 511-520 (1861). Quoted in Rev. S.J. Deschamps, Les Sociétés Secrètes et la Société, p. 24).

"For fifty years I have been a resolute partisan of assimilation of the Jews, and have believed in it. Today I confess my error. The American melting-pot will never produce the fusion of one Jew. Fifty years ago we were near to assimilating ourselves to the Americans. But since then two millions of our brother (or three) have arrived from the East, keeping their ancient traditions, bringing with them their old ideal. This army has submerged us. It is the hand of God. The Jew must differentiate himself from his neighbor; he must know it; he must be conscious of it; he must be proud of it." (The Jewish Chronicle, April 28, 1911, M. Schindler, an American Rabbi).

"We are hostile to strangers, guests in all countries, and at the same time we find ourselves at home in all countries when we are masters there." (Isaac Blumchen, Le Droit de la Race Supérieure).

"I do not intend," declares Herzl, "to provoke a softening of opinion in our favor. It would be idle, and would lack dignity. I am content to ask the Jews if, in the countries where we are numerous, it is true that the position of advocates, doctors, engineers, professors, and employees of all kinds, belonging to our race (people), is becoming more and more intolerable." (Le Droit de la Race Supérieure, Isaac Blumehen).

"[The Jews] fill in proportion, thanks to their insistence, more posts than the other communities, Catholic and Protestant. Their disastrous influence makes itself felt above all in affairs which have most weight in the fortune of the country; there is no enterprise in which the Jews have not their large share, no public loan which they do not monopolize, no disaster which they have not prepared and by which they do not profit. It is therefore, ill-considered to complain, as they always do, they who have all the favors and who make all the profits!" (Les Juifs (1847), Cerfberr de Medelsheim; also quoted by Gougenot des Mousseaux in Le Juif, (1869).

"More than ever the study of the Jewish problem is a pressing reality, but...the Jewish question is also more than ever 'taboo'; one must not speak of it, still less study it. At most the right to deny its existence is recognized. Those even who should be most interested in finding a solution pretend to solve the problem by abstention or silence which is considered both a sane method and a high humanitarian idea...Judaism in its origins and expansions presents an ensemble of sentiments, notions, and ideas which are the source of veritable systems, religious, political and social; one has the right to discuss and contest these systems." (Le Problème Juic, (1921), Georges Batault).

"The dispersion of the Jews has rendered them a cosmopolitan people. They are the only cosmopolitan people, and in this capacity must act, and are acting, as a solvent of national and racial differences. The great Ideal of Judaism is not that Jews shall be allowed to flock together one day in some hole-and-corner fashion, for, if not tribal, at any rate separatist objects; but that the whole world shall be imbued with Jewish teachings, and that in a Universal Brotherhood of Nations, a great Judaism, in fact, all the separate races and religions shall disappear...The new Constitution of the [Jewish] Board of Deputies marks an epoch in the history of that important institution...The real importance of the new Constitution is...that it provides a machinery for enabling the Jews of England to work together when the occasion requires, that in short it organizes the Jews of the whole Empire, and renders their aggregate force available in cases of emergency." (Jewish World, February 9 and 16, 1883).

"...We aspire to corrupt in order to attain to govern...We have corrupted too much...I begin to fear that we will not be able to stem the torrent we have let loose. There are insatiable passions of which I did not guess, unknown appetites, savage hatreds which ferment around and under us...It has been very easy to pervert; will it also always be easy to muzzle the perverts?...I am disturbed, for I am getting old, I have lost my illusions, I do not wish, poor and deluded of everything to assist as a theatrical supernumerary in the triumph which I have created and which would repudiate me by confiscating my fortune and taking off my head. We have gone too much to the extreme in many things. We have taken from the people all the gods of heaven and earth which had their homage. We have torn from them their religious faith, their faith in monarchy, their honesty and their family virtues, and we hear in the distance their sinister roarings. We tremble, for the monster may devour us...The world is cinched on the declivity of democracy, and for some time for me democracy has meant demagogy.

"It is true that there is a distinct 'Jewish idea' in business and professional life which has eaten away the traditional principles of honor on which Anglo-Saxon life was erected. Every Jew knows that, every non-Jew knows it...It is true that beneath all the network of trivializing influences in literature, art, politics, economics, fashion, and sports, is Jewish influence controlled by Jewish groups. Their Orientalism has served as a subtle poison to dry up the sound serum of Anglo-Saxon morality on which this country thrived in its formative years." (The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem, Vol. IV, pp. 224-225).

"...the original mixed ancestry of the Jews and their subsequent history of intermixture with every people among whom they have lived and continue to live..." (Ashley Montagu, Man's Most Dangerous Myth, (1974) , p. 375).

"The word 'ghetto' is synonymous with the Jews: 'ghetto, section of a city in which Jews lived. In the early Middle Ages their segregation in separate streets or localities was voluntary...The reason generally given for compulsory ghettos was that the faith of Christians would be weakened by the presence of Jews. Within the ghetto the inhabitants were usually autonomous, with their own courts of law and their own culture." (The Columbia Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed., (1950), p. 772).

"London became after Waterloo the money market and the clearing house of the world ...Every new economic enterprise of the British state appealed to the Jewish genius for commerce and especially for negotiation in its most abstract form - finance...The two things dovetailed one into the other and fitted exactly, and all subsidiary activities fitted in as well. The Jewish news agencies of the nineteenth century favored England in all her policy, political as well as commercial; they opposed those of her rivals and especially of her enemies. The Jewish knowledge of the East was at the service of England (Opium Wars, Indian Conquest). His international penetration of the European governments was also at her service, so was his secret information...The Jew might almost be called a British agent upon the Continent of Europe and still more in the Near and Far East...He was admitted to every institution in the State, a prominent member of his nation became chief officer of the English executive, and, an influence more subtle and penetrating, marriages began to take place, wholesale, between what had once been the aristocratic territorial families of this country and the Jewish commercial fortunes. After two generations of this, with the opening of the twentieth century those of the great territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood were the exception. In nearly all of them was the stain more or less marked, in some of them so strong that though the name was still an English name and the tradition those of a purely English lineage of the long past, the physique and character had become wholly Jewish and the members of the family were taken for Jews whenever they travelled in countries where the gentry had not yet suffered or enjoyed the admixture." (Hilaire Belloc, The Jews, pp. 222-223)
"There are two life-forces in the world I know: Jewish and gentile (non-Jewish), ours and yours...I do not believe that this primal difference between gentile and Jew is reconcilable. You and we may come to an understanding, never to a reconciliation. There will be irritation between us as long as we are in intimate contact. For nature and constitution and vision divide us from all of you forever." (Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, Harcourt, Brace & Co., New York, 1924, pp. 19, 23).

"...don't kill the farmer, he's too valuable to us." (Jewish Motto).

"We Jews regard our race as superior to all humanity, and look forward, not to its ultimate union with other races, but to its triumph over them." (Goldwin Smith, Jewish Professor of Modern History at Oxford University, October, 1981)

"We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own." (You Gentiles, by Jewish Author Maurice Samuels, p. 155).

"But it has paid us even though we have sacrificed many of our own people. Each victim on our side is worth a thousand Goyim." (Statement reported in a French Newspaper in 1773 after a meeting in the Rothschild home).

In an article by the Jew Victor Berger, one of the national leaders of the Socialist Party, wrote, in the Social Democratic Herald: "There can be no doubt that the Negroes and Mulattos constitute a lower race."

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels said Blacks: "...were people who ought to be eradicated and swept from the earth." (Karl Marx, by Nathaniel Weyl).

"Jews may adopt the customs and language of the countries where they live; but they will never become part of the native population." (The Jewish Courier, January 17, 1924).

"We are neither German, English or French. We are Jews and your Christian mentality is not ours." (Max Nordrow, a German Zionist Leader, in The Jewish World)


"The chief difficulty in writing about the Jewish Question is the super-sensitiveness of Jews and non-Jews concerning the whole matter. There is a vague feeling that even to openly use the word 'Jew,' or expose it nakedly to print is somehow improper. Polite evasions like 'Hebrew' and 'Semite,' both of which are subject to the criticism of inaccuracy, are timidly essayed, and people pick their way gingerly as if the whole subject were forbidden, until some courageous Jewish thinker comes straight out with the old old word 'Jew,' and then the constraint is relieved and the air cleared...A Jew is a Jew and as long as he remains within his perfectly unassailable traditions, he will remain a Jew. And he will always have the right to feel that to be a Jew, is to belong to a superior race. No one knows better than the Jew how widespread the notion that Jewish methods of business are all unscrupulous. No existing Gentile system of government is ever anything but distasteful to him. The Jew is against the Gentile scheme of things.
He is, when he gives his tendencies full sway, a Republican as against the monarchy, a Socialist as against the republic, and a Bolshevik as against Socialism. Democracy is all right for the rest of the world, but the Jew wherever he is found forms an aristocracy of one sort or another." (Henry Ford, Dearborn Independent)

"We are interested in just the opposite...in the diminution, the killing out of the Goyim." (Reportedly spoken by a Jewish speaker in the Rothschild home in 1773)

"We intend to remake the Gentiles -- what the Communists are doing in Russia." (Rabbi Lewish Brown in How Odd of God, New York, 1924)

"Let us recognize that we Jews are a distinct nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station, or shade of belief, is necessarily a member. Organize, organize, until every Jew must stand up and be counted with us, or prove himself wittingly or unwittingly, of the few who are against their own people." (Louis B. Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice, 1916-1939)

"I would willingly disenfranchise every Zionist. I would almost be tempted to proscribe the Zionist organizations as illegal and against the national interests...I have always recognized the unpopularity, much greater than some people think of my community. We [Jews] have obtained a far greater share of this country's [England] goods and opportunities than we are numerically entitled to. We reach, on the whole, maturity earlier, and therefore with people of our own age we compete unfairly. Many of us have been exclusive in our friendships, and intolerable in our attitude, and I can easily understand that many a non-Jew in England wants to get rid of us." (Jewish-American Ambassador to India, Edwin Montague, The Zionist Connection, p. 737)

"You cannot be English Jews. We are a race, and only as a race can we perpetuate. Our mentality is of Edomitish character, and differs from that of an Englishman. Enough subterfuges! Let us assert openly that we are International Jews." (From the manifesto of the "World Jewish Federation," January 1, 1935, through its spokesperson, Gerald Soman).

"No one pretends that a Japanese or Indian child is English because it was born in England. The same applies to Jews." (Jewish World, London September 22, 1915)

"A Jew remains a Jew. Assimilalation is impossible, because a Jew cannot change his national character. Whatever he does, he is a Jew and remains a Jew. The majority has discovered this fact, but too late. Jews and Gentiles discover that there is no issue. Both believed there was an issue. There is none." (The Jews, Ludwig Lewisohn, in his book "Israel," 1926)

"When some Jews say that they consider themselves as a religious sect, like Roman Catholics or Protestants, they do not analyze correctly their own attitude and sentiments...Even if a Jew is baptized or, that which is not necessarily the same thing, sincerely converted to Christianity, it is rare if he is not still regarded as a Jew; his blood, his temperament and his spiritual particularities remain unchanged." (The Jew and the Nation, Ad. Lewis, the Zionist Association of West London; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 187)

"An energetic, lively and extremely haughty people, considering itself superior to all other nations, the Jewish race wished to be a Power. It had an instinctive taste for domination, since, by its origin, by its religion, by its quality of a chosen people which it had always attributed to itself [since the Babylonian Captivity], it believed itself placed above all others. To exercise this sort of authority the Jews had not a choice of means, gold gave them a power which all political and religious laws refuse them, and it was the only power which they could hope for. By holding this gold they became the masters of their masters, they dominated them and this was the only way of finding an outlet for their energy and their activity...The emancipated Jews entered into the nations as strangers...They entered into modern societies not as guests but as conquerors. They had been like a fenced-in herd. Suddenly the barriers fell and they rushed into the field which was opened to them. But they were not warriors...They made the only conquest for which they were armed, that economic conquest for which they had been preparing themselves for so many years...The Jew is the living testimony to the disappearance of the state which had as its basis theological principles, a State which anti-Semitic Christians dream of reconstructing. The day when a Jew occupied an administrative post the Christian State was in danger: that is true and the anti-smites who say that the Jew has destroyed the idea of the state could more justly say that the entry of Jews into society has symbolized the destruction of the state, that is to say the Christian State." (Bernard Lazare, L'Antisémitisme, pp. 223, 361; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon de Poncins, pp. 221-222)

"The most important and pregnant tenet of modern Jewish belief is that the Ger {goy - goyim}, or stranger, in fact all those who do not belong to their religion, are brute beasts, having no more rights than the fauna of the field." (Sir Richard Burton, The Jew, The Gypsy and El Islam, p. 73)

"Jew and Gentile are two worlds, between you Gentiles and us Jews there lies an unbridgeable gulf...There are two life forces in the world Jewish and Gentile...I do not believe that this primal difference between Gentile and Jew is reconcilable...The difference between us is abysmal...You might say: 'Well, let us exist side by side and tolerate each other. We will not attack your morality, nor you ours.' But the misfortune is that the two are not merely different; they are opposed in mortal enmity. No man can accept both, or, accepting either, do otherwise than despise the other." (Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, pages 2, 19, 23, 30 and 95)

"The Jewish people, Rabbi Judah Halevy (the famous medieval poet and philosopher) explains in his 'Kuzari,' constitutes a separate entity, a species unique in Creation, differing from nations in the same manner as man differs from the beast or the beast from the plant...although Jews are physically similar to all other men, yet they are endowed [sic] with a 'second soul' that renders them a separate species." (Zimmer, Uriel, Torah- Judaism and the State of Israel, Congregation Kehillath Yaakov, Inc., NY, 5732 (1972), p. 12)

Actually it seems to serve their twisted purpose! The basis of this belief is All non Jews are subhuman and are to be exploited (milked or beeved). When these folks get Irate and try to fight back they naturally see the enemy as being all "Jews" and not merely their Corrupt leaders.. Thus these leaders would use IaHUeH's people as a shield to further their wicked ends. When attacked, the people tend to stick closer together.. According to what they are told to believe for a non-jew to confront a Jew is like Blasphemy... this makes it harder to Isolate the very Serious problem! It turns into a vicious cycle of destruction. And has caused the unnecessary Suffering and Death to Millions upon Millions of People...all for the benefit of a few.
It seems that the only effective Solution must come from the "Jewish" people themselves.. but they still aren't listening.. because they are told that whenever someone even so much as mentions "Multi-national Banker" that it is because that person is an anti-semite and wants to Murder all "Jews" everywhere! I wonder how many millions of dollars have been spent by the ADL to keep people from talking bad about these "Multi-National (Power hungry, moneygrabbing, slimball, Lying, Thieving, Murderous, Sons of Belial) Bankers"!!!

ADRIEN ARCAND, Canadian political leader in New York Speech, October 30, 1937: "There is nothing else in Communism - a Jewish conspiracy to grab the whole world in their clutches; and no intelligent man in the world can find anything else, except the Jews, who rightly call it for themselves a "paradise on earth."
Jews are eager to bring Communism, because they know what it is and what it means. It is because Communism has not been fought for what it really is - a Jewish scheme invented by Jews - that it has progressed against all opposition to it. We have fought the smoke-screen presented by Jewish dialecticians and publicists, refusing to fight the inventor, profiteer and string-puller. Because Christians and Gentiles have come to fear the Jews, fear the truth, and they are paralyzed by the paradoxical slogans shouted by the Jews."
The fact that what are commonly spoken of as rights are often really privileges is demonstrated in the case of the Jews. They resent bitterly their exclusion from certain hotels, resorts and other places of gathering, and make determined efforts to horn in. But the moment any considerable number of them horns in, the attractions of the place diminish, and the more pushful Jews turn to one where they are still nicht gewuenscht ...("not wanted.") "I am one of the few Goyim who have ever actually tackled the TALMUD. I suppose you now expect me to add that it is a profound and noble work, worthy of hard study by all other GOYIM. Unhappily, my report must differ from this expectation. It seems to me, save for a few bright spots, to be quite indistinguishable from rubbish..."

"The Jewish theory that the GOYIM envy the superior ability of the Jews is not borne out by the facts. Most GOYIM, in fact, deny that the Jew is superior, and point in evidence to his failure to take the first prizes: he has to be content with the seconds. No Jewish composer has ever come within miles of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms; no Jew has ever challenged the top-flight painters of the world, and no Jewish scientist has equaled Newton, Darwin, Pasteur or Mendel. In the latter bracket such apparent exception as Ehrlich, Freud and Einstein are only apparent. Ehrlich, in fact, contributed less to biochemical fact than to biochemical theory, and most of his theory was dubious. Freud was nine-tenths quack, and there is sound reason for believing that even Einstein will not hold up: in the long run his curved space may be classed with the psychosomatic bumps of Gall and Spurzheim. But whether this inferiority of the Jew is real or only a delusion, it must be manifest that it is generally accepted. The GOY does not, in fact, believe that the Jew is better than the non-Jew; the most he will admit is that the Jew is smarter at achieving worldly success. But this he ascribes to sharp practices, not to superior ability." (Minority Report: H. L. Mencken's Notebooks)

Monday, October 26, 2015

Churchill foresaw and condoned massacres of Sudeten Germans





"[Germany must keep] not a single plane, no navy, their war industry must be absolutely broken up. A lot of blood will flow after the war. Many Germans will be killed in your [Edvard Beneš] country [Czechoslovakia] as well—it cannot be helped and I agree with it. After a few months we'll say "that's enough", and we shall start on the work of peace: try the guilty men who stayed alive."
- Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill, April 3, 1943, over lunch with Edvard Beneš and Jan Masaryk.

Zbynék Zeman, Antonín Klimek, The Life of Edvard Beneš, 1884-1948: Czechoslovakia in Peace and War, New York: Oxford Uni. Press, 1997, p. 185.


The Czechoslovakian diplomat Edward Taborsky quoted what Beneš stated after lunch with Churchill:

"[the British prime minister approved] in principle the transfer of population as
the only possible solution of minority problems in Central Europe after the war."

Edward Taborsky, President Edvard Beneš: Between East and West, 1938-1948, Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1981, p. 125.

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Zionist Terrorism in Norway


The Zionist influence on the recent terrorist attack in Norway and and how Jewish extremists have both led efforts to destroy the West and and now are trying take control of the anti-immigration movement to lead it to failure.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Feminism: The Great Destroyer

An Interview of Dr. William L. Pierce

By Kevin Alfred Strom

KAS: There is a continuing public debate about the role of women in our society and the related subjects of sexism and feminism. One example was the hullabaloo that occurred during the confirmation of Clarence Thomas’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Feminists and their claque in the media charged that this confirmation was an affirmation of the “sexism” rampant in the U.S. political establishment. The cure for this alleged problem is to get more women into positions of political power, according to many people in the media.

Another example was the uproar about a drunken party several years ago in Las Vegas for Navy fliers at which several women who showed up were manhandled — in particular, a female flier who later complained to the media about her treatment. The news coverage of the Las Vegas party brought demands from media spokesmen and politicians for rooting out the “sexism” in the armed forces and giving women equal roles in everything from infantry combat to flying fighter jets. Do you see any real or lasting significance in this debate?

WLP: Oh, it’s certainly a significant debate. The significance is perhaps not exactly what the media spokesmen would have us believe it is, but there is a significance there nevertheless. Getting at the real significance, pulling it out into the light where everyone can see it and examine it, requires a little care, though. There’s a lot of misdirection, a lot of deliberate deception in the debate.

Look at the first example you just mentioned. The controlled media would have us believe that the approval of Clarence Thomas by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the face of Anita Hill’s complaints about him demonstrates a callous insensitivity to women’s welfare. But what were Anita Hill’s complaints? They were that when Thomas had been her boss in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission he had asked her several times for a date and that on one occasion he had begun describing to her a pornographic film he had seen the evening before. She never alleged that he had demanded sexual favors from her, threatened her, or put his hands on her. Her complaint was that he had shown a normal, healthy interest in her as a woman. He had asked her for a date.

Talking to her about a pornographic film may have indicated a certain lack of refinement on his part — at least that would be the case if the two of them were members of a traditional White society, in which gentlemen didn’t talk about pornographic films in the presence of ladies, at least not in the office — but what the hell, the folks who were raising such a fuss about Thomas’s behavior are, like both Clarence and Anita themselves, all members of the brave, New World Order society, which is neither White nor traditional. It’s a so-called “multicultural” society in which there are no gentlemen and there are no ladies; there are just male and female people, and the female people are no different from the male people: they are just as bawdy, just as vulgar, just as aggressive.

KAS: So you believe that the whole thing was just a tempest in a teapot, that it really wasn’t significant?

WLP: A tempest in a teapot, yes, but still very significant. One aspect of the Clarence and Anita circus was that it was simply seized on and used by people with a certain political agenda, and so of course their tendency was to make as much ado as they could about it. But another aspect is that many of the feminists who were screeching against Thomas and against the Senate’s approval of him really were indignant that the man had asked Anita Hill for a date. They really were outraged that he had an interest in her as a woman and did not simply treat her as another lawyer in his office. Men are not supposed to notice women as women, but only as people, and radical feminists really do become angry if one drops this unisex pretense even for a minute. Open a door for one of them and you’ll get a nasty glare; call one of them “my dear” or refer to her as a “girl” and you’ll be slapped with a civil rights lawsuit.

The fuss about this Tailhook Association party in Las Vegas reveals the same sort of nuttiness. I mean, what do you expect when a bunch of Navy fliers throw a wild, drunken orgy? They had held their party in Las Vegas several years in a row, and the party had gained a bit of a reputation. It was notorious. Everybody in Naval aviation knew all about it. The Navy women who went to the party knew what to expect. They joined the orgy. Any woman who didn’t want to be pawed by drunken fliers and have her panties pulled off stayed away. Certainly, if these Navy fliers had shanghaied some unsuspecting woman off the street and forced her to submit to indignities, I would be the first to call for their being put up against a wall. I’ll go further and say that I really don’t approve of drunkenness under any circumstances — although I believe it’s only realistic to accept drinking as a fact of military life. But I cannot work up much sympathy for a woman who, knowing what the Tailhook parties are like, decides that she will pretend that she really isn’t a woman but rather is a genderless Navy flier and so can go to the Tailhook party without worrying about her panties.

KAS: That’s really irrational isn’t it? It doesn’t make sense to ignore human nature like that.

WLP: Irrationality seems to be the rule rather than the exception in public affairs these days. Feminism, of course, is just another exercise in reality denial, which has become such a common pastime. There are too many people out there who seem to believe that if we pretend that men and women are the same, they really will be; that if we pretend there are no differences between Blacks and Whites except skin color, the differences will disappear; that if we pretend that homosexuality is a normal, healthy condition, it will be.

Feminism is one of the most destructive aberrations being pushed by the media today, because it has an immediate effect on nearly all of us. There are many sectors of the economy, for example, in which racial-quota hiring and promotion – so-called “affirmative action” — isn’t a real problem, and so White people who work in those sectors remain relatively unaffected by the racial aspects of America’s breakdown, but feminism is becoming pervasive; there are few relationships between men and women, especially between younger men and women, which will not suffer from the effects of feminism in the near future.

KAS: You just referred to feminism as “a destructive aberration” and spoke of the breakdown of America. Are the two things connected?

WLP: When homosexuals come out of the closet and women go into politics, empires crumble. Or, to say that a way which more accurately reflects the cause-effect relationship, when empires begin to crumble, then the queers come out of the closet and women go into politics. Which is to say, that in a strong, healthy society, feminism isn’t a problem. But when a society begins to decay — when the men lose their self-confidence — then feminism raises its head and accelerates the process of decay.

KAS: Before we go further, exactly what do you mean by feminism? Can you define the word for us?

WLP: Feminism is a system of ideas with several distinguishing characteristics. First, it’s a system in which gender is regarded as the primary identifying characteristic, more important even than race. Second, and paradoxically, it’s a system in which men and women are regarded as innately identical in all intellectual and psychical traits, and in all physical traits except those most obviously dependent on the configuration of the genitalia. Third, it’s a system in which filling a traditionally male role in society is valued above being a wife and mother, a system in which the traditional female roles are denigrated. Finally, it’s a system in which men and women are regarded as mutually hostile classes, with men traditionally in the role of oppressors of women; and in which it is regarded as every woman’s primary duty to support the interests of her fellow women of all races against the male oppressors.

I should add that not every woman who describes herself as a feminist would go along 100% with that definition. Real feminism is not just an intellectual thing; it’s a sickness, with deep emotional roots. Some women just want to be trendy, but are otherwise normal. They just want to be fashionable, and feminism is held up by the media as fashionable these days. It’s Politically Correct.

And while we’re at it, we should note that there is an analogous malady, usually called male chauvinism, which expresses itself in a range of attitudes toward women ranging from patronizing contempt to outright hatred. Feminists often attribute the growth of feminism to a reaction against male chauvinism. Actually the latter, which never afflicted more than a minority of White men, has been more an excuse for the promoters of feminism than a cause of that disorder.

KAS: OK. So that’s what feminism is. Now, in what way is it destructive? How is it connected to America’s decline?

WLP: Feminism is destructive at several different levels. At the racial level it is destructive because it divides the race against itself, robbing us of racial solidarity and weakening us in the struggle for racial survival; and because it reduces the White birthrate, especially among educated women. It also undermines the family by taking women out of the home and leaving the raising of children to television and day-care centers.

At a personal or social level feminism does its damage by eroding the traditional relationship between men and women. That traditional relationship is not based on any assumption of equality or sameness. It’s not a symmetrical relationship, but rather a complementary one. It’s based on a sexual division of labor, with fundamentally different roles for men and women: men are the providers and the protectors, and women are the nurturers. Men bring home the bacon, and they guard the den; women nourish the children and tend the hearth.

Many people today sneer at this traditional relationship. They think that in the New World Order there is no need to protect the den or the condo or whatever, because these days we’re all very civilized, and that all one needs to do to bring home the bacon is hop in the car and drive to the nearest shopping mall, and, of course, a woman can do that just as well as a man. Therefore, because the times have changed, roles should change. There’s no longer any reason for a division of labor; now we can all be the same, claim the apologists for feminism.

Now, I have a couple of problems with that line of reasoning. First, I’m not as eager to toss million-year-old traditions in the ash-can as the New World Order enthusiasts are, because I’m not as confident in the ability of the government to provide protection for all of us as they are, nor am I as confident that there’ll always be bacon at the neighborhood shopping mall and we won’t have to revert to earlier ways of getting it. Actually, I’m an optimist by nature, but I’m not so optimistic as to believe that I’ll never be called on to use my strength or my fighting instincts to protect my family. In fact, every time I watch the evening news on television, I become more convinced that there’s a very good chance we’re going to end up having to fight for our bacon within the next few years.

In the second place, Mother Nature made a very big investment in her way of doing things over the past few million years of primate evolution. It’s not simply a matter of our deciding that we don’t like Mother Nature’s plan because it’s not fashionable any longer, and so we’ll change it. We are what we are. That is, we are what millions of years of evolution have made us. A man is a man in every cell of his body and his brain, not just in his genitalia, and a woman is a woman to the same degree. We were very thoroughly and precisely adapted to our different roles. We can’t change reality by passing a civil rights law. When we deceive ourselves into thinking that we can, there’s hell to pay. Which is to say that we end up with a lot of very confused, disappointed, and unhappy men and women. We also end up with a lot of very angry men and women, which accounts for the feminists and the male chauvinists.

It’s true, of course, that some women might be perfectly happy as corporate raiders or professional knife fighters, just as some men have willingly adapted to the New World Order by becoming less aggressive and more “sensitive.” But it doesn’t work that way for normal men and women. What the normal man really wants and needs is not just a business partner and roommate of the opposite sex, but a real woman whom he can protect and provide for. And what a normal woman really wants and needs with every fiber of her being, regardless of how much feminist propaganda she’s soaked up, is a real man, who can love and protect her and provide for her and their children. If she’s watched too much television and has let herself be persuaded that what she wants instead of a strong, masculine man is a sensitive wimp who’ll let her wear the trousers in the family half the time, she’s headed for a severe collision with the reality of her own nature. She’ll end up making herself very neurotic, driving a few men into male chauvinism, and becoming a social liability. Our society just can’t afford any more of that sort of foolishness. If feminism were only making individuals unhappy, I wouldn’t be very concerned about it. I’ve always believed that people were entitled to make themselves as unhappy as they wanted to. But unfortunately, it’s wrecking our society and weakening our race, and we must put a stop to it soon.

KAS: How do you propose to do that? The feminist movement really seems to be snowballing, and as you noted the mass media are all for it. It would seem pretty difficult to stop. Anyone who opposes the feminists is perceived as a male chauvinist who wants to take away women’s rights and confine them to the kitchen and the bedroom.

WLP: Well, of course, I’m not in favor of taking anything away from women. I’d like to give women the option of being women again in the traditional way, in Nature’s way, the option of staying home and taking care of their children and making a home for their husbands. It wasn’t the feminists, of course, who changed our economy so that it’s no longer possible for many families to survive unless both the man and the woman are employed outside the home. A society which forces women out of the home and into offices and factories is not a healthy society. I’d like for our society to be changed so that it’s possible once again for mothers to stay at home with their children, the way they did back before the Second World War, back before the New World Order boys got their hands on our economy and launched their plan to bring the living standard of the average American wage earner down to the average Mexican level. I think many will want to stay home when it’s possible to do so. And I am sure that if we provide the right role models for women, most will want to. If we regain control of our television industry, of our news and entertainment and advertising industries, we can hold up quite a different model of the ideal woman from the one being held up today.

Most women, just like most men, want to be fashionable. They try to do and be what’s expected of them. We just need to move that model back closer to what Mother Nature had in mind. Then there’s no need to take away anybody’s rights. A few female lawyers with butch haircuts can easily be tolerated in a healthy society — a few flagpole sitters, a few glass eaters, a few of all sorts of people — so long as their particular brand of oddness doesn’t begin undermining the health of the whole society.

KAS: But what about the people who control the media now — what about the legislators — who are on the feminist bandwagon? They are very powerful. What will you do about them?

WLP: We’ll do whatever is necessary. Now we’re helping people understand feminism and the other ills which are afflicting our society. Understanding really must come first. After understanding comes organization. And then, as I said, whatever is necessary.

And I should add this: Whatever flies in the face of reality is inherently self-destructive. But we cannot wait for this disease to burn itself out. The toll will be too great. We have to stand up against it and oppose it now. We have to change people’s attitudes about feminism being fashionable. We have to make the politicians who’ve jumped on the feminist bandwagon understand that there will be a heavy price to pay, someday, for their irresponsibility.

KAS: Do you really think that you can change the behavior of the politicians?

WLP: Perhaps not, but we must at least give them a chance to change. Unfortunately in the case of the politicians most of them have many crimes besides an advocacy of feminism to answer for, and they know that they can only be hanged once.