Today I'll discuss something I've discussed earlier,
but it's very important and is worth talking about over and over: having the
courage to speak up for what we believe. Courage of this sort - moral courage -
has always been important, but now, with the enemies of our people pushing hard
to silence opposition to them and their destructive policies by enacting new
legislation against what they call "hate crime" and "hate
speech," moral courage is essential for our survival.
We have a President who is running around the country
trying to drum up support for a repressive program of legislation he says is
necessary to "pull America together" and achieve racial harmony. He
is telling the groups to which he speaks that they don't have much longer to wait
before there will be a non-White majority in America, and then the White
racists - the "haters" - won't be able to cause any more trouble. Mr.
Clinton is gloating that soon there will be a truly multiracial America: an
America without a "dominant European culture." He is gloating about
this, and many of his audiences are gloating with him and cheering him when he says
this. All we have to do now, he tells them, is keep the racists under control
with new laws until we get rid of this "dominant European culture."
And many of the audiences cheering him when he says this are White students and
faculty members at American universities.
It is the trendy, fashionable thing these days to be
anti-White. It is fashionable to let everyone know how much you despise White
people and European culture and how much you admire Africans, Indians, Jews,
Orientals, and mestizos; how superior you believe their cultures to be; and how
much you look forward to seeing them become a majority in the United States.
I remember witnessing the beginning of this fashion
when I was a university student myself back in the 1950s and then a professor
in the 1960s. What I noticed first, back in the 1950s, was the pressure to make
the universities more "democratic" - that is, to admit a great many
more students. The argument was that the universities were too
"elitist," that rich kids went to the prestigious private
universities and thereby earned a ticket to an easy and prosperous life, while working-class
kids were denied these opportunities. This argument was pure baloney. I was a poor
kid myself, but I had applied myself and won a scholarship to a prestigious
private university, as had many of the other students at my university. That
was Rice University, in Texas. There has not been a time, at least during the
past 60 years, when a student with real scholastic ability was kept from
getting a good university education in America by having no money.
The anti-elitists began prevailing by greatly
increasing the number of curricula. Subjects that were more appropriately
taught in trade schools, or perhaps as high school electives, became the basis
for new university curricula. We used to joke about offering courses in
basket-weaving, golf, or fly-tying in order to accommodate students who had no
aptitude for mathematics or history. All too soon these jokes became reality.
And students who couldn't even pass a course in basket-weaving were brought in
on athletic scholarships.
But this dumbing down of the universities wasn't the most
important part of the destructive work carried on there. The key was our
enemies' gaining control of the socialization process at the universities. This
was even before television had become the dominant opinion-control medium that
it is today. Teenagers arriving at a university are somewhat disoriented and
unsure of themselves. They are on strange turf. A few have the self-confidence
and inner strength to find their own way, but most don't. Most look to those
around them for guidance. The Jews were the one coherent, self-conscious group
at most universities, both among the students and the faculty, and they began
dominating the discussions. Always very verbal, very pushy and outspoken, they made
themselves heard while others kept their opinions to themselves. With academic
standards relaxed, students had more time to spend in socializing activities.
By the 1960s these activities were firmly in the grip of the Jews and their
leftist collaborators. Incoming students were subjected to intense social
pressure to conform their ideas and opinions to those of the Jews and the
leftists. Political Correctness became the prerequisite for social acceptance,
and social acceptance was an overwhelming need for many students. They could be
made to spout any sort of nonsense or wickedness, even to believe it, if that
would lead to popularity.
I remember witnessing this phenomenon, but I didn't
fully understand its significance at the time, so for the most part I kept my
opinions to myself. I didn't have time for a lot of socialization anyway. I
feel guilty about that now. I really should have spoken up much more loudly. I
should have encouraged others to speak up. I should have organized opposition
to the Jews and the leftists. But I didn't. Mostly I just went about my own
work. Of course, there were no American Dissident Voices broadcasts for
me to listen to and to help me understand what was happening and to encourage
me to take a stand. You don't have that excuse.
The Jews have been way ahead of the rest of us in
understanding psychology and the way it can be applied to control the thinking
and the behavior of the people around them. They used the same techniques of
brainwashing in the Soviet Union back in the 1920s and 1930s to control the non-Communist
majority around them. They kept everyone immersed in discussion groups, in worker-education
groups, in "sensitivity training" seminars, and the like, using a
constant barrage of words, first to disorient people and then to bring them
into conformity with what was Politically Correct. They had dissidents
confessing to their own thought-crimes in group sessions, pledging to think
only correct thoughts in the future, and begging to be punished for their past
errors. The same mind-control techniques are used in cults today to control the
minds of the cult members. People susceptible to this sort of socialization can
be made to believe anything and do anything, even commit mass suicide, in order
to receive and retain group approval.
It is in the universities where the Jews have used
these socialization techniques to do the worst damage. They have White students
enthusiastically promoting programs aimed at the extinction of the White race.
When we remember the mass suicide of cult members at Jonestown a few years back
or more recently the mass suicide of the Heaven's Gate cult members in
California, we should not be surprised that Bill Clinton is cheered by groups
of White university students when he tells them that the end of the
"dominant European culture" in the United States is in sight.
Jews, of course, are not the only ones able to use
psychological techniques capable of controlling the minds of cult members or
university students. What's needed is a group setting where these socialization
techniques can be used, group leaders with verbal skills adequate to use the techniques
effectively, and a group of people sufficiently lacking in self-confidence and
sense of self-worth that they crave acceptance by the group more than anything
else. Intelligence by itself is no protection against this sort of mind
control. Even bright people are susceptible, so long as the need for group
approval is strong enough. Women are more susceptible than men on the average,
and the sort of wimpy, 'sensitive" men we are seeing all too much of these
days are more susceptible than those with more normal glands, but even men who
seem strong and assertive can be brainwashed by the sort of socialization
techniques used at American universities today.
I have in front of me a recent newspaper column by a
journalist, Gwynne Dyer, which provides a splendid example of the sort of
mind-set which is formed by this socialization process. He is a true
Clintonista, and he looks forward in his column with glee and eagerness to a
future in which his own race will be extinct. He exults over the soaring rate
of miscegenation in America and the increasing influx of non-White immigrants.
He is especially pleased by the fact that White women who have served in the
armed forces, where they are subjected to a brainwashing program based on the
same psychological principles used by the Jews at our universities and are exposed
to a high concentration of Blacks in every facet of their daily lives, are
seven times as likely to couple with a Black male as are women who have not had
military service. His real hero, after Bill Clinton, is Tiger Woods, the
hopelessly mixed, part Chinese, part Negro, part White, part Indian golfer. He
thinks that it is just wonderful that someone can have such a mixed-up ancestry
and still learn how to hit the little, white ball into the hole. If mischlings
can win golf tournaments, he believes, why then obviously they can do
everything else. He concludes his column with the gloating prediction: "It
will take another generation or two, but the old racist games are over - and
the future is light brown."
It is too easy to dismiss this sort of anti-White
raving as a "sickness." Certainly, Gwynne Dyer and all who think like
him are spiritually sick, ideologically sick, but most of them were more or less
normal, healthy people before going through the socialization process I have
described. In most people the need to be accepted, the need to be part of the
group, the need to be fashionable, is strong enough to overcome reason and
instinct. If such people are socialized in a healthy way, if their attitudes
are shaped by leaders who have healthy racial and social attitudes themselves, they
will develop a healthy spirituality, a healthy racial ideology. But when the
socializing influences are Jewish, we end up with desperately sick people like
Gwynne Dyer.
I began my comments today by saying that it is
essential for our survival as a race that a great many of us have the moral
courage to speak the truth, to stand up for what we believe in the face of the
sort of sickness exemplified by Gwynne Dyer and Bill Clinton. The Jews have
succeeded in subverting our universities, they have succeeded in converting
them into factories for turning out moral basket cases like Gwynne Dyer,
because we did not stand up to them back in the 1950s and 1960s: I and many
others who knew better. I didn't really understand the full significance of what
was happening back then Ñ but you don't have that excuse.
It is essential to speak out now because what the Jews
are doing to our young people is by no means inevitable. It is by no means
irresistible. It depends for its success on there being no effective
opposition, no credible opposition. The situation is very much like that
described by Hans Christian Anderson in his story about the emperor's new
clothes. As long as no one had the courage to speak out, the hoax worked. But
when one little boy said aloud, "Look, mama, the emperor is naked,"
the bubble burst; the illusion was shattered; the hoax collapsed. The Jews are able
to persuade people to believe things contrary to reason and instinct because
they are able to create the illusion that everyone else in the socialization
group already believes these things. This illusion provides a strong pressure
to conform. But when someone has the courage to stick a pin in their illusion,
they lose this advantage.
I have another newspaper column on my desk. It is from
the New Orleans Times-Picayune, which is part of the Jewish Newhouse
chain, and it was written by a thoroughly socialized Clintonista, who was
formerly an editorial writer for the paper. He now belongs to a group of socialized
Christians in St. Petersburg, Florida, who have been meeting regularly for the
past two years to keep each other appropriately "sensitized" on
racial issues. And they try to bring new members into their group and use
socialization techniques on them to bring them into conformity with the party
line.
They made the mistake of inviting a man to their group
who has the habit of saying what he believes instead of what he thinks others
want to hear. It really tore the group up. The columnist's aim in writing this
particular column seems to have been to show that there's still a lot of "insensitivity"
in the White population which needs to be cured. He quotes the dissident's comments
at the meeting. The dissident, Tom, told the others that he didn't see why
Whites needed to apologize to Blacks for anything. Whites didn't force Blacks
into slavery, Tom said. Blacks were enslaved by their own kind in Africa and
then sold to White or Jewish slave dealers and brought to America, he told the
group. And Blacks today ought to be grateful for that, Tom said. If their
ancestors had not been brought to America, the present generation of Blacks
would be in Africa today instead of in America, and their lives would be far
worse.
Now, this is just the plain, unvarnished, historical
truth, but it's a Politically Incorrect truth, and the others at the meeting
couldn't deal with it.
They went through the familiar hooting and loud
groaning routine, which is supposed to shame a dissident into changing his
views. They rolled their eyes back and threw their hands up in exasperation.
They gasped in disbelief that anyone could hold such bigoted views. But none of
these techniques worked on Tom. He just kept coming out with more truths. He
told them, "I guess it must hurt some people to hear that, but it's the
truth." Poor Tom: he just didn't understand that the truth is the last
thing these people wanted to hear. What they wanted was more reinforcement
for the falsehoods and perverse ideas which already had been imposed on them.
One Politically Correct White man at the meeting told
Tom angrily, "I want to throw up! What you say makes me want to
vomit." Another member of the group, referring to Tom, remarked with
hatred in his voice, "He hasn't learned anything!" A Politically
Correct White woman stared bitterly at Tom and said, according to the
columnist, "Why is it that we have to take this from him? Why should the
people who are hurt always be the ones who answer with kindness? Why do we have
to keep opening our hearts up to bigots?"
All of this hatred, this disapproval and pressure to
conform directed at Tom made him uncomfortable, but he stood his ground. He
refused to repent or to retract anything. The others couldn't cope with this
unexpected behavior. The meeting broke up with some members wondering aloud
whether the races could ever live together in peace.
It's hard to say what effect Tom's courage and honesty
had on this group in the long run. Most of the members probably recovered from
their shock and began admiring the emperor's new clothes again. They already
had been too thoroughly socialized, and Tom was the only dissident among 35 true
believers. But Tom may very well have caused one or two waverers to rethink
their positions. He may have caused a few of them to make contact with reality
again. And if Tom had said what he believes to the whole group from the time
the group was formed, he probably could have prevented the flight from reality
to Political Correctness for many more of the members.
We have a similar situation at our universities today.
Not everyone is equally weak and eager to parrot the party line. Many still
have a bit of independence in them, a bit of respect for truth. All these
waverers need is to hear one little boy say, "But, mama, the emperor has
no clothes on." All they need is one example of courage and honesty, and
they will be able to resist the Jewish brainwashing. The lemmings, of course,
the people with no internal sense of direction at all, the ones who must have
group acceptance at any cost, will still follow the Jewish party line in many cases.
But in many other cases the Jews will not be able to create the necessary
illusion at all. They will not be able to make even the most impressionable and
eager-to-conform young people abandon reason and instinct and begin rooting for
the annihilation of their own race.
And that, my friends, will be a real accomplishment.
If you can, with a simple demonstration of courage and honesty, keep one other
person from being socialized by the Jews - if you can open the eyes of one
young White woman and keep her loyal to her own race, if you can keep one young
White man in touch with racial reality - then your life will have been
worthwhile. Your existence will have been justified.
And if you and enough
others make a regular habit of standing up for the truth, of standing up for what
is right, we will foil the Jews and the Clintonistas and guarantee a future for
our people. We will assure that, contrary to what Gwynne Dyer would like, the
color of the future will be White.
No comments:
Post a Comment