News Items From the Memory Hole

Post Reply

News Items From the Memory Hole

Post by Cosmotheist » Fri Sep 12, 2014 8:36 pm

The following article is a collection of news items from a 1994 issue of National Vanguard magazine.

by Dr. William Pierce

"Hate Crimes" on the Rise
(Text in bold by Cosmotheist for emphasis)

The name itself is Orwellian, reminiscent of "face crime" and "thought crime," but in the ranks of the Politically Correct "hate crime" is no joking matter. The orthodox cherish their image of the gang of burly, beery, swastika-tattooed skinheads, shouting "White power!" or "kill niggers!" and stomping some gentle, bespectacled Afro-American granny with their hobnailed boots. To doubt or question the prevalence of such "hate criminals" in America today is as unthinkable as it was to question the existence of the Devil in priest-ridden 13th-century Europe. Satan played a very useful role in keeping the faithful in line, and whenever it seemed helpful Holy Mother Church did not hesitate to demonstrate his existence by burning as witches a batch of women accused of consorting with the Prince of Darkness.

And so it is today that when White people seem to be forgetting the burden of racial guilt which they bear for having acted so horribly toward their Black and Brown and Yellow and Jewish and sodomite brothers in the past the Sanhedrin of Political Correctness strives to remind them of their wickedness and their need for penance. In this task they often have volunteers from the rank and file: a racially mixed couple who will stealthily erect a cross in their own yard, set it afire, and then assume the role of victims of a "hate crime"; or an obnoxiously Jewish "survivor" of Hitler's "death camps" who will paint a swastika on his own front door under the cover of darkness and then babble to the sympathetic news media the next day about all of the terrible memories it brings back. It is no different in Germany, except that the emphasis is a bit heavier there on swastikas and less on burning crosses. A recent case which was puffed up into an especially heinous atrocity by the controlled media was that of a 17-year-old German girl in Halle, wheelchair bound by an ailment of hysterical origin, who tearfully told of being assaulted by neo-Nazi skinheads who shouted, "Heil Hitler! Gas the cripples!" and then carved a swastika into her face with a knife.

The Associated Press began an account of the January 10 attack with the words: "Reminded of the Third Reich's attempts to exterminate the disabled, Germans sought to come to grips Wednesday with a neo-Nazi attack that left a swastika carved on the face of a girl in a wheelchair." All of the U.S. television networks reported the incident in similarly grim tones. Jewish and Christian spokesmen in both Germany and America expressed their outrage and called for new laws against "hate." German church and leftist groups were able to organize a demonstration of 15,000 protesters in Halle against "right wing terror" only two days after the incident was first reported in the press.

The German police assigned 100 men to a hunt for the guilty skinheads, but at the same time began investigating the validity of the girl's story. When medical examiners noted that the swastika on the girl's cheek was made up of 34 separate, shallow cuts -- a characteristic of self-inflicted wounds -- police, whom we can only suspect of harboring doubts about the existence of the Devil, began questioning the girl, Elke J„ger, more closely. Finally Elke admitted that she had done it herself, and that the skinhead assault was as imaginary as "the Third Reich's attempts to exterminate the disabled." (The Third Reich, against the vociferous protests of the churches, encouraged doctors to use euthanasia in the case of hopelessly defective infants and adults who were in vegetative condition, but it never contemplated treating injured or otherwise disabled but fully conscious persons with anything other than normal medical care.)

American television viewers, who had reacted with appropriate horror to the original reports of the attack, never heard about Elke's confession, of course. In Germany, where the news could not be so easily suppressed, one might have expected a certain amount of embarrassment on the part of the Jews and Christians who had been calling so loudly for new laws against neo-Nazis, but there was none of it. Perhaps Elke had lied, they said, but the neo-Nazis were still capable of doing what she said they had done, and so the suspiciously prompt demonstration against them had been fully justified.

A few of the German news media looked into their archives and found records of earlier swastika-carving reports. There had a been a 14-year-old girl in Saxony-Anhalt who had carved a swastika into her cheek in November 1992 and then blamed two skinheads. There were four cases of swastika carvings in 1993, and all of them had been self-inflicted. Just 11 days after Elke's "attack" and before the hoax had been exposed, a 15-year-old Turkish immigrant in the Bavarian city of Selb reported that he had been attacked by a gang of German skinheads who had carved a swastika into his arm while they taunted him with anti-Turkish and anti-immigrant slogans. As in every other case, a police investigation revealed that he had done the carving himself and then invented the story about the skinheads.

PC Episcopalians

It used to be that the Christian churches were regarded as bastions of conservatism, if not reaction: defenders of the traditional virtues and all that. My, how things have changed!

In January the General Theological Seminary, the Episcopal Church's oldest and most prestigious seminary, announced a change in its housing policy for seminarians. It used to be the rule that unmarried couples were denied apartments in the school's dormitory. No longer, however: henceforth, said Bishop Craig B. Anderson, seminary president, the 150-student dormitory in New York City will make apartments available to "committed same-sex couples."

The change in the rule is for homosexuals only: heterosexual couples still can't live in the dormitory unless they're married.

Diane Porter, a member of the seminary board of trustees and an executive at Episcopal headquarters in New York, said that the policy change "is a major step forward for the seminary and the church."

Bishop Anderson said that the change "allows the seminary to be a microcosm for the rest of the church."

As the Twig Is Bent . . .

There's an outfit in Washington, DC, which publishes "study materials" for high school social science classes around the country. It has a magazine named New Options which is chock full of cleverly persuasive little articles designed to mold the minds of students in Politically Correct fashion. A recent issue contained an article titled "Multiculturalism Will Make Us Whole." Here are a few excerpts from that article:

*Like most of us, I grew up in white America. All my playmates were white.... That America is fast disappearing. Already 25% of us are nonwhite.... In 65 years most of us will trace our descent to Africa, Asia, or Latin America -- not to Europe.
*The press does not often give these facts the attention they deserve. When it does, it comes up basically with three kinds of stories. Some... stress that the "browning of America" is inevitable. Others... stress that it's in white people's economic self-interest to adjust to the new realities. For example, in a less than inclusive America will a majority nonwhite workforce happily agree to pay Social Security for retired whites? Finally, some stories... stress that multiculturalism is simple justice, since it would give The Oppressed their richly deserved seats at the table.

*All three kinds of stories make valid points. But none of them stresses what is surely the most important point of all. Multiculturalism is not only inevitable, necessary, and just. If it's done right, it will expand our mental horizons. It will enrich our interpersonal lives. It will make us whole... Multiculturalism will never be fully or happily embraced if we choose it because we feel we "have to" or "should." It will only really flourish if we choose it with fullness of heart.

The author goes on to quote "20 prominent advocates of a multiracial, multiethnic, multisexual America," who can barely suppress their hatred for heterosexual Whites and their "monocultural" civilization. She says, "Our whole society may have paid the price for monoculturalism, but minorities and immigrants have been paying it most directly. And they do so every day."

One multicultural advocate, an Arab, reports: "Most Americans wear or watch or do something `foreign' every day. The problem is we deny it. And in the process of denying it we create psychological hurt for those who are denied." Another, Shea Howell, identified as a "Detroit activist," says, "I think the emptiness of white culture is very painful to people."

Joan Lester, of something called the Equity Institute, says: "My vision is of a world and a society in which there will be more variation than there is now. Standards of scholarship, for example, have been `normed' on one population, primarily white middle-class to upper-class males.... And there's [sic] just so many other ways out there of thinking about things that have been excluded from the academy and its derivatives! I foresee that in a multicultural world there will be many modes of scholarship, many modes of writing papers that are not what we consider now to be standard."

A Chicano advocate, Rodolfo Acuna, is blunter: "You go back to de Tocqueville, you realize this is a nation without traditions. And that's why they're so fuckin' insecure about their culture. It'll exist irregardless.... Those English Only groups running around, they're a bunch of kooks."

The author holds out the extinction of White "monoculturalism" as an extension of the "civil rights" movement. She quotes Joan Lester again: "It's amazing to remember that we had legal segregation until 1964. So we're only one generation removed from that. But now we've had those barriers removed for a generation, we're seeing that there are other barriers. Those other barriers are our monocultural norms, and they're going to have to be removed to have full participation by everyone."

Then Toby Johnson, a homosexual spokesman, chimes in: "There's a way in which all sides are right. No side has got the corner on the Truth. We need to understand that to practice multiculturalism."

The author winds up rejoicing that the goal of a truly multicultural America is in sight: "Count on it happening. Already... it seems vaguely un-American that I grew up in white America."

And that, of course, is the way the White students who use New Options as study material are supposed to feel: vaguely guilty for being White.

And it works. A reporter for the Detroit Free Press interviewed a number of young White high school graduates about their feelings on multiculturalism and race. Kim Anderson, a 17-year-old from an upper-class Detroit suburb who is planning to attend Michigan State University, invited two Blacks to her high school graduation party, and her relatives were upset. "I felt very bad," she said. "My friends aren't racist. A few of my friends have dated black guys, and it's really not that big a deal.... It seems our generation might change."

Another girl, Natalie Yenglin, who plans to join the Army and then become a police officer, went further: "It was the whites that started slavery and all the racism," she said. "We were the ones that made them become our slaves. That's totally wrong.... They could torture us forever for what we did to them. And we'd deserve it."

Before we jump to the conclusion that only females are susceptible to this sickness, we should recall a couple of the White male survivors of the 1992 Los Angeles riot. There was Reginald Denny, of course, whose behavior and comments made us all wish that Damian Williams had used a bigger brick. And there was Scott Coleman, who was riding a motorcycle with his uncle through Long Beach when the riot began. The Blacks spotted the two honkies and opened fire, seriously wounding Coleman and killing his uncle.

From his hospital bed Coleman, 26, told reporters, "I'm not going to hate Black people. It's not the fault of their race. I never had problems with them before. I just hated rednecks. If you're gonna be racist, be racist against someone who's racist against everyone else." Both Coleman and his late uncle were avid Star Trek fans. "Star Trek is the only show about the future that has Black people in it," he said.

Blatantly Heterosexual

Germans and White Americans are not the only ones who have been infected with racial self-hatred. The disease is manifest in every country which has a significant Jewish influence in the mass media, and that includes the United Kingdom. There as elsewhere the deracination of the White majority by the controlled media has emboldened freaks, perverts, and moral cripples of every sort to assert themselves.

In January the headmistress at an English school felt bold enough to refuse to let her students see the ballet Romeo and Juliet, because it was "blatantly heterosexual." Now, the English have lost a lot in the past 50 years, but at least they still have a sense of humor, and there are a few slivers of the mass media which still cater to that sense of humor. Columnists and commentators made a laughingstock of the headmistress, with jokes about her lesbianism. One, Sun columnist Richard Littlejohn, referred to her as a "hatchet-faced dyke." Eventually, she was forced to back down on her Romeo and Juliet decision.

There are, of course, plenty of Politically Correct journalists in Britain, as well as politicians and teachers, and these were outraged by the attacks on the headmistress. John Edwards, who teaches social policy at the University of London, sniffed to one reporter, "Making sexist or racist jokes is something that one no longer does."

Of course, it really wasn't a laughing matter. In a healthy society the headmistress wouldn't have been laughed at: she would have been yanked promptly out of her school, sewn up in a burlap sack with plenty of stones, and tossed off a bridge -- really.

One can only imagine the reaction if she had been a principal at an American school instead. Not only would there have been no major newspaper willing to print Mr. Littlejohn's jokes about her, but she probably would have been invited to the White House by Hillary and offered a job at the FBI by Janet "Butch" Reno.

The Unaware Majority

Kean College, in Union, New Jersey, attained national prominence late last year when Khalid Abdul Muhammad, Louis Farrakhan's right-hand man, made a speech to the students there. Ever since then the editors and columnists of America's major newspapers have been expressing their indignation. There has been an average of around one article or editorial per day about Muhammad's speech in the New York Times for the past three months. Everyone who reads a newspaper occasionally knows the reason: Muhammad said some uncomplimentary things about Jews in his speech.

That shouldn't have surprised anyone. The Nation of Islam is no Uncle Tom group. Farrakhan is one of the very few Black leaders in America who usually says what's on his mind. And what's often on his mind is that he doesn't like the Jews using Blacks as pawns in their scheme to destroy the White race. It's not that he has any love for Whites, of course: it's just that he understands that in the Jews' New World Order there's no room for Blacks or Whites, except as servants of the Chosen People.

So in his November 29 speech Muhammad made remarks about "Jew York City," and "Columbia Jew-niversity," and he said, "[The Jews] went in there to Germany, the way they do everywhere they go, and they supplanted, they usurped... and a German in his own country would almost have to go to a Jew to get money." Now, to the Jews such remarks are nothing less than sacrilege, and so it's no wonder that they've been raging with hatred against Farrakhan ever since -- even though Farrakhan gave an apology of sorts in January for Muhammad's rhetoric.

All of that is business as usual. Farrakhan and the Jews have been getting in their digs at each other for the past decade, with Farrakhan occasionally backing off a bit, primarily to avoid losing his liaison with the Uncle Tom community.

What's really interesting about Muhammad's speech at Kean College is the contrast between the Jewish reaction to it and the White reaction. Kean College has 12,000 students, and 71 per cent of them are White (14 per cent Black and 14 per cent mestizo). Only one per cent of the students at this working-class school are Jews. Muhammad received a $2,650 fee from student funds when he accepted the speaking invitation, over the objections of the few Jews on the campus, who handed out anti-Farrakhan leaflets to students entering the campus theater where the speech was to be given.

During his speech Muhammad had a few things to say about Whites as well as about Jews. Speaking of South Africa, he said that after Blacks take over the South African government in April they should give the Whites 24 hours to get out of South Africa, then kill everyone who remained: "We kill the women. We kill the babies.... We kill them all. When you get through killing them all, go to the goddamn graveyard and dig up the grave and kill them a-goddamn-gain, because they didn't die hard enough." The Blacks in the audience laughed and cheered. The Whites were silent.

And the Whites, with a very few exceptions, have remained silent, while the Jews have raged and foamed. Why is that? Ask any White student at Kean College -- where they outnumber Jews about 70 to one and Blacks five to one -- and you'll probabably get a response something like this:

"Muhammad who? Hey, man, didja see the ball game on TV last night? Great game! Hey, I gotta go, or I'll be late for my Multiculturalism 202 class."

Stay out of Tall Buildings

What's the difference between Baruch Goldstein and Elie Wiesel?

The difference is that Goldstein, having grown up in New York City, had less of a Yiddish accent than Wiesel, who grew up in Transylvania.

In case you missed the news, which was in the public eye for as brief a time as the controlled media could manage it, Goldstein is the nice Jewish boy, a graduate of New York's Yeshiva U, who on February 25 machine-gunned all of those Palestinians while they were praying in their mosque.

Goldstein wasn't trying to win a place for himself alongside John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer in the Guiness Book of Records; he was simply expressing, in his own way, the hatred for all non-Jewish mankind that burns in the heart of every pious Jew. Wiesel expresses it with his writing, urging every Jew to keep alive his hatred for Germans; Goldstein expressed it with an assault rifle. If he hadn't died in his February escapade, Goldstein would have had a good chance of being invited to the White House to receive a medal from Bill Clinton, just as Wiesel did from Ronald Reagan.

And, really, Goldstein is the more pious of the two. The Bible doesn't tell Jews just to write nasty things about the goyim; it says to kill them, especially those that are contaminating the Holy Land (which God made holy by giving it to the Jews) with their presence: "Of the cities of these peoples which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy them ...." (Deuteronomy 20: 16-17) And there they were, descendants of the Canaanites and the other peoples Yahweh ordered destroyed, in a city the Jews believe was given to them for an inheritance. So Goldstein did his best to destroy them.

No wonder the controlled media weren't really very excited by the February 25 massacre. Those Palestinians had it coming to them anyway. Nevertheless, New Yorkers who work in tall office buildings -- anything close to the size of the World Trade Center -- might consider wearing hardhats to work for the next few months.

* * * ... tems2.html

Post Reply