by Dr. William Pierce
Free Speech - March 1999 - Volume V, Number 3
Sometimes after I finish speaking with you in one or another of my programs, I have a bad feeling. I feel that I have let you down by not really leveling with you and telling you everything. I feel as if I have walked into the courtyard of the temple and politely reprimanded one or two of the moneychangers there for his dishonest practices, when I should have overturned all of the tables and then taken a whip to everyone in sight.
I feel that way after I have focused heavily on a very specific problem in our society — on our immigration problem, on our embarrassment in the White House, on the decline of our schools, on the correlation between AIDS and race, even on such an urgent matter as the Jewish control of our news and entertainment media — because I feel that I may have led some of you to believe that if we solve the particular problem I have talked about, or even many of the problems I talk about on these programs, then we will be well on the way to having things straightened out the way they ought to be. And that just isn’t so.
The problem with the moneychangers in the courtyard wasn’t in the details of the way they conducted their business. The problem was that they shouldn’t have been there at all, and the fact that they were there, and nobody really cared that they were there, indicated a far more pervasive and fatal problem in the society than the mere shortchanging of the moneychangers’ customers. Punishing the moneychangers — even making them all conduct their business honestly — could not solve the underlying problem. It could not do anything at all even to ameliorate that problem.
Let’s think of a story a thousand years older than the one about the moneychangers in the courtyard. Let’s recall the story of the return of Odysseus, king of Ithaca, to his palace after being away for 20 years during the Trojan War and subsequent adventures. He finds his palace overrun with strangers lusting after his wife and his kingdom, feasting on his food, and corrupting his household with their bad manners. Odysseus doesn’t think about dealing with this problem by correcting the manners of his unwanted guests. He simply makes a plan and kills the whole bunch of them, and then he goes about straightening things out.
And we might liken our situation in America today to being at a banquet thrown by a gang of unwelcome guests in our palace: a palace that we and our forefathers built with our own hands. These unwelcome guests have set out a whole array of dishes that they have concocted for us, and they invite us to join them at the table and eat and be merry. And what a splendid array of dishes there is to choose from! Try a nice casserole of very assertive female business executives, female Army officers, and female fighter pilots garnished with homosexual television entertainers. Yum, yum, yum!
How about a tasty salad of subsidized housing for non-White welfare recipients in White neighborhoods, with a dressing of affirmative action and equal opportunity? Surely you will enjoy the delicious sensitivity soup: that will just whet your appetite for a wonderful broiled filet of Political Correctness. And there are appetizing side dishes of permissively raised, smart-aleck 10-year-olds who have been taught to address all adults by their first names; of racially integrated, coed university dormitories; and of fast-talking, loudmouthed Jewish comedians with all the latest jokes about your various bodily functions.
And you can wash everything down with your choice of beverages. There’s hearty multicultural ale; there’s fine diversity wine; there are as many delicious anti-discrimination cocktails as you want. And for dessert there’s “Holocaust” remembrance cake with a nice icing of Black basketball players, Black football players, and Black talk-show hosts. And while you’re eating and drinking and yukking it up with our guests, you’ll be entertained by the Bill and Monica dance team performing the hora and accompanied by Hillary’s village rappers. Isn’t it all just too, too wonderful?
What? None of that appeals to you, you say? All you want is a simple dish of Aryan dignity and Aryan discipline and Aryan honor?
Well! What are you, some kind of racist? Don’t you appreciate anything our very, very clever guests have done for you, even if you didn’t ask for it? Are you inclined to reprimand some of the pushier and more obnoxious guests? Are you inclined to explain to them exactly what it is about diversity wine which makes you sick to your stomach? Do you want to tell them why you gag at the sight of Black basketball players on cereal boxes, and why you’re sure you’ll vomit if you’re forced to choke down even one more slice of “Holocaust” remembrance cake? Do you believe that you should try to persuade our guests to let us have a small corner of the banquet table for ourselves, set with food and drink the way we like it?
Well, I’m not really inclined to do any of those things. I’m inclined to deal with our unwelcome guests the way Odysseus dealt with his. I’m inclined to turn the whole banquet table over onto the floor and then begin splitting skulls, right and left. I’m inclined to lay waste to the whole multicultural feast, to spill the blood and brains of the cooks and caterers and waiters, along with those of our unwelcome guests, onto the floor and into every filthy, alien dish they have prepared for us, and then to take a firehose and wash the whole mess out the door and into the gutter.
I apologize for such a distasteful analogy with our present situation, but I want to explain to you today why I believe that it is essential for us to take a radical rather than a conservative approach to dealing with our unwelcome guests. I want you to understand why reform cannot cure our society’s present sickness and why revolution will be necessary. Of course, on these programs we talk mostly about very specific problems — we talk about the danger of AIDS from interracial sex, about the corruption of our legal system, about the declining standards in our schools, about the reluctance of the controlled mass media to report Black-on-White crime, about the lies and distortions of history on the part of an educational establishment which is more concerned with Political Correctness than with truth, and about many other things. And all of these things are extremely important. They’re important because they are details in the overall picture, and we must understand the details if we’re really to understand what has happened to us and if we are to make an intelligent plan for the future.
But what we don’t want to do is become so absorbed by any one detail that we forget the big picture. We don’t want to slip into the error of believing that we can become healthy again by dealing with just a few specific problems. We don’t want to make the mistake of believing that a proper way to behave at the banquet thrown by our unwanted guests is to avoid the most distasteful dishes they have prepared for us and nibble at the ones which are a little less obnoxious to us.
The problem is that every dish our uninvited guests have prepared for us is poisonous to us in one way or another. They have taken over our pantry and our kitchen, they have substituted their recipe books for ours, and they have very largely remodeled our palace to suit themselves. Whenever they have come across something in the palace which suits our tastes instead of theirs, they have done their best to destroy it. They really have done a thorough wrecking job on our society, a thorough job of making it a society which suits their nature but is deadly to ours. We cannot live in the same world with them: certainly not in the same palace. It’s not just this particular banquet of alien dishes which is a problem we must deal with: it is their continuing presence in our palace, waiting for their next opportunity to poison and subvert — which is why the method of Odysseus is the proper method for us to use in dealing with them.
I want to read something to you which was written 75 years ago by one of our uninvited guests during a rare lapse into frankness. The guest’s name was Maurice Samuel, and he was a very prominent and influential man among our guests. He was an active member of the Zionist Organization of America and the recipient of many awards from other Jewish organizations. He wrote 20 books, all of them dealing with Jewish topics. He was a Jew’s Jew, a guest at the forefront of those hell-bent on remodeling our palace.
In 1924 Maurice Samuel wrote a book titled You Gentiles, and it was addressed to us. It is an amazing book, because in it Samuel explains to us in detail why the Jews are remodeling our palace for us. He explains that the natures of his people and our people are so different that nothing we do can be pleasing to Jews, and so they are changing everything to suit themselves. Of course, he explains all of this to us in a typically deceptive way. He tells us that all of the changes the Jews are making in our society are really good for us. And then he invites us to come to the banquet his fellow Jews are preparing for us in our own palace.
Now I’ll read you just two brief passages from a chapter of You Gentiles which is titled “We, the Destroyers.” And remember, this was written 75 years ago, in 1924, and when Samuel refers to the instruments of destruction which the Jews are using against our society, he’s talking primarily about communism, in which so many Jews were playing a leading role at the time. Maurice Samuel writes:
“In everything we are destroyers – even in the instruments of destruction to which we turn for relief. The very socialism and internationalism through which our choked spirit seeks utterance, which seem to threaten your way of life, are alien to our spirit’s demands and needs. Your socialists and internationalists are not serious.”
That was written before the Jews had proved that their socialists were indeed serious by butchering 50 million of our people. Samuel concludes the chapter:
“We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build.”
Fascinating, isn’t it? I’ll bet you’d never heard that before. But Maurice Samuel was, in fact, one of the most widely read Jewish authors from the 1920s through the 1950s. By the 1950s, of course, the remodeling job on our world that Samuel and other Jews were demanding in the 1920s already was well underway.
An interesting historical fluke in the 1950s that I believe wasn’t foreseen by anyone, including our unwelcome guests, was the Cold War. The Jews had been riding high in the Soviet Union prior to the Second World War, and Jewish publicists in the United States had been solidly pro-Soviet. Stalin, of course, had started an ethnic cleansing program in the Soviet bureaucracy just before the war began, cleaning out many of the entrenched Jews and replacing them with Russians. But the Jewish propaganda in the United States had so much momentum that it couldn’t switch directions very fast. And then the war halted Stalin’s cleansing program before many Jews in the West understood that their fortunes were changing in the Soviet Union. The Soviet espionage network in the United States, which was almost entirely Jewish in its personnel, remained intact throughout the war and provided the Soviet Union with plans for America’s nuclear weapons, among many other things. I was in elementary school at the end of the war, and I still remember my teachers parroting the official party line about our gallant Soviet ally, good old “Uncle Joe.”
After the U.S. participation in the war had made it possible for Stalin to beat back the Germans and achieve a Soviet victory, however, Stalin returned to his program of de-Judaizing the Soviet bureaucracy, and the Jews’ pro-Soviet and anti-fascist propaganda machine in the United States finally did an about-face and began warning us of the Soviet menace. By the middle of the 1950s “fascism” in its various forms no longer was the principal threat to the American way of life, and communism took its place as the number-one enemy in the propaganda coming from Hollywood and New York. The Jews’ remodeling program had to develop new techniques and new slogans, and their whole propaganda machine didn’t shift gears at the same time, resulting in a bit of confusion for a while. The Cold War probably put the remodeling program a decade or more behind its original schedule.
I have an old, yellowed editorial from the July 1955 issue of the magazine The Point. It is titled “Should Hate Be Outlawed?” In it an unusually bold Gentile editor, Leonard Feeney, is still taking issue with the Jews’ campaign at that time to stamp out fascism by outlawing “hate” — a campaign, he notes, which has been pushed hard by them since 1940. At least, 1940 is when the “anti-fascist” campaign became noticeable to Feeney. He writes:
On billboards, on bus and subway posters, in newspapers and magazines, through radio and television broadcasts, Americans are being assured and reassured, both subtly and boldly, that “Bigotry is fascism . . . Only Brotherhood can save our nation . . . We must be tolerant of all!”
The editor continues — and remember, this was written 44 years ago:
The long-range effects of this [anti-fascist propaganda] campaign are even now evident. It is producing the “spineless citizen”: the man who has no cultural sensibilities; who is incapable of indignation; whose sole mental activity is merely an extension of what he reads in the newspaper or sees on the television screen; who faces moral disaster in his neighborhood, political disaster in his country, and an impending world catastrophe with a blank and smiling countenance. He has only understanding for the enemies of his country. He has nothing but kind sentiments for those who would destroy his home and family. He has an earnest sympathy for anyone who would obliterate his faith. He is universally tolerant. He is totally unprejudiced. If he has any principles, he keeps them well concealed, lest in advertising them he should seem to indicate that contrary principles might be inferior. He is, to the extent of his abilities, exactly like the next citizen, who, he trusts, is trying to be exactly like him: a faceless, characterless putty-man.
Between 1955 and the Clinton era the Jews’ “anti-fascist” campaign didn’t stop. It just changed its slogans a bit. With Clinton in office the campaign is once again expressing itself openly as a campaign to outlaw what it calls “hate.” And unfortunately, the tendency of the American people to be without spine or principles, lest they offend someone and be considered “haters,” has proceeded to a terminal state.
And this business of making the Gentiles more “tolerant” — more puttylike — has been only one part of the Jews’ remodeling program on our palace. Virtually all of the dishes set before us now are dishes of their preparation: prepared in our kitchen with our resources, but according to their recipes, so as to suit themselves. They have gotten their filthy hands on everything that used to be ours and changed it until it is unfit for us. Our art, our music, our literature, our history, our morals, our cinema, our sports, our life-styles, our ideals, our schools, our family life, our child-raising practices, the relations between our sexes, our government: you name it; they’ve changed it.
Such a tolerant government they have given us; such a wonderful and sensitive President, who feels our pain; such marvelous sports heroes — Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson and Mike Tyson — to be idols for our kids; such brilliant men running our news and entertainment media — Disney’s Michael Eisner and Time Warner’s Gerald Levin and Universal’s Edgar Bronfman and MTV’s Sumner Redstone — all busy keeping us entertained and informed.
Of course, our history and our literature and our art and our music all still exist — in some locked basement storeroom of our palace. What has really been destroyed is our people’s sense of identity — and with it their morale and their values. Putty-men: more than half of them think Bill Clinton is an OK guy. I’ll bet more than half of them also haven’t the faintest idea who Odysseus was: “Hey, what band is he in, man? Which team does he play for?”
Probably three-quarters of them think that our guests have done a good job of remodeling, that we’re better off for it. They’ve learned to like the new dishes our guests have prepared for us. They’ve been taught new tastes: Tupac Shakur and Ice Cube instead of Beethoven. They have new heroes: Malcolm X instead of Leif Ericsson, Michael Jordan instead of Neil Armstrong. They would thoroughly disapprove of taking a whip to the moneychangers. They wouldn’t understand the reason for that. They would consider that very intolerant, very bigoted. And besides that, too masculine, too violent. Ugh! Much better to talk things out with the moneychangers. And as for Odysseus’ way of dealing with the uninvited guests in his palace: why, they would consider that a “hate crime,” something for Janet Reno to have the FBI deal with.
It is this change in the sensibilities of our people wrought by 75 years of remodeling which makes any program of reform impractical. Most of our people simply have no understanding of the need for reform. They believe that things are pretty much OK the way they are. And if there still are a few flaws in our society, they are nothing that a few more slices of “Holocaust” remembrance cake washed down with another bottle of diversity wine can’t fix. We can wage a temperance campaign against the diversity wine, but we’ll be outcampaigned by the wine merchants, I’m afraid. No, I really believe that what we need to do is string the old bow and bring an end to the whole banquet the way Odysseus did.
Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles (Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1924)
1 post • Page 1 of 1