The Nation Which Dares Not Speak its Name, part 2

[Grimork]

American Dissident Voices broadcast of 2 April, 2022
https://nationalvanguard.org/2022/04/th ... me-part-2/
by Kevin Alfred Strom


AT THE END of last week’s program, I brought up the state of Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which forbade interracial marriage. And that is only one law of many which were instituted between the founding of the American Republic and 1963, designed to protect our precious blood, protect our national character, protect our unique combination of beauty, intelligence, and creativity, and protect our children’s future. In 1963, virtually all of these laws were standing and still on the books. The White character of America then stands in testimony to that.

But now things are very different. What happened? I could cite the political betrayal step by step. I could tell you about the packing of the Supreme Court with aliens and subversives and how they struck down our racial laws. I could trace the payoffs and the pressures and the corruption of our political process which led to the enactment of new laws which opened our borders and took away our freedom of association. And those were important factors, to be sure. But the most important reason White America stands on the brink of extinction is the change in attitude of White Americans themselves. Many Whites have come to accept a self-hating anti-White morality, a morality that defines as ‘good’ whatever tends to the disappearance of our race, and defines as ‘evil’ — in fact, the epitome of evil — whatever tends to support or protect the continued existence of the White race.

What caused that attitude shift? There are many reasons, but one stands above all others in importance. In 1963, we stood at the very beginning of a new age. The first generation which had grown up with television was just then coming to adulthood. The impact of television can hardly be exaggerated. It quickly replaced newspapers as the primary source of news and information for the public. It rapidly became the main source of entertainment, both dramas and comedies. It was the first all-encompassing virtual reality for its victims, filling their eyes and ears with an imaginary world that to a large extent replaced the real world for most Americans for at least several hours every day. It defined reality for most of us, outside of the small part of the world personally known to us. It became the national arbiter of taste, fashion, and mores. It showed us what was “good” and what was “bad.” It showed us how “the beautiful people” acted, what pleased them — and what horrified and shocked them. And most of us were very sensitive to those portrayals — unreal as they were — and acted accordingly. We wanted to be like “the beautiful people” too.

And in 1963, just as today, the television networks were firmly in the control of one particular ethnic group — the Jews. Sarnoff, a Jew, ran NBC. Goldenson ran ABC. And Paley ran CBS. All were Jews. Their Jewish successors dominate television to this day. And heavy Jewish ownership and control of newspapers, publishing, and film studios effectively prevented anyone with a mass audience from pointing out the Jewish TV monopoly. With this media power, Jews were able to dictate to politicians, and, most importantly, they had a mainline into the optic and aural nerves of the American public — and they proceeded to change those healthy racial attitudes held by Americans back when America was still America.

Jews are, in general, an intelligent people. They are very aware of the fact that racial integrity is necessary for a people’s survival. They know that racial integrity is needed to preserve each people’s unique character. And they apply those rules to their own people, though not exactly as we applied them to ourselves in healthier times. Many of their publications decry intermarriage with non-Jews as a threat to Jewish survival. Israel is pointedly and repeatedly defined by them in ethnic and racial terms. Unlike White Europeans, the Jews are a most peculiar parasitic race, which apparently wants and needs a degree of intermarriage with their host populations in order to pass more unnoticed among them. Such a parasite is able to preserve its Jewish essence nonetheless. Exactly how they do this is not yet known, but I have presented my own theory in my broadcast “How Shall I Kill Thee? Let Me Count the Ways.” Yet they do want a reservoir of indisputably Jewish genes, and in that reservoir, mixture with non-Jews is prevented as much as possible. There the Jews want racial integrity and racial survival in a racial state for themselves — Israel. And even in White nations, where mixture is tolerated, there are also reservoirs of indisputably Jewish genes — the many rabbis and other Jews who rail against intermarriage (yet never seem to be called out as “racists” by the Jewish-controlled media) see to that. But for White Americans who watch the Jewish-controlled networks and read the Jewish-controlled press, it’s multiculturalism, pluralism, unlimited immigration, and ‘race does not exist.’

Imagine if the President, the head of the State Department, and our top military leaders all stood up in front of the cameras and microphones and declared in their official capacities that they “were firmly committed to the survival of America as a White nation.” Unlikely. Unthinkable, actually, considering the nature of our current ‘leaders.’ But those men and many other US officials have made such a statement. They just changed the words around a little. They substituted ‘Israel’ for ‘America’ and ‘Jewish’ for ‘White.’ But the statement was made by them. Again and again, in fact. And, if you do an Internet search on the phrase, you’ll find an amazing number of White American and other non-Jewish politicians who are very concerned over the “survival of Israel as a Jewish state.” And they didn’t just pull that phrase out of a hat. It’s not just ‘the survival of Israel.’ The ‘as a Jewish state’ is repeatedly tagged on the end. Again and again. It’s something they’ve been told to say, almost word for word. It seems that the land by itself means nothing if the race is destroyed. And so, it is Israel as a Jewish state that is consistently emphasized.

Way back in June 2003 this issue came to a head. It was reported then that Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom was extremely concerned that the language used by Arab and US diplomats meet with Jewish approval, and he particularly wanted “a clear statement by Bush of the need to preserve Israel as a Jewish state. We expect Abu Mazen to say so as well. We expect the Sharm el-Sheikh summit to express an Arab undertaking to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.”

The very next day, June 3d, the Israeli newspaper Maariv discussed how seriously Jewish leaders take the inclusion of the words ‘Jewish state’ in statements on Israel by American politicians. Leave the phrase ‘as a Jewish state’ out and they become very concerned. When it was merely rumored that George Bush was not planning to refer to Israel in precisely that fashion in a summit in Aqaba, the Jews made it clear what a mistake that was. The article about it was even titled “Bush Refuses to Declare that Israel is A Jewish State.”

On the same day the Maariv article appeared, June 3d, Colin Powell told a press conference that the administration believes that “Israel must be always seen as a Jewish state.” And the day after that, at the summit, President Bush “pledged to protect Israel ‘as a vibrant Jewish state.’” Gee, I wonder, why did he decide to phrase it that way?

And then, on July 29th and on several other occasions, Bush used almost precisely the same language: “America is firmly committed to the security of Israel as a Jewish state…” Correspondent John Donnelly of the Boston Globe admitted that “Bush always uses similar language when addressing any political issue involving Israel.” Then Dick Cheney got into the act: He spoke at a campaign reception at New York’s Waldorf-Astoria hotel. What did he say? “In the Holy Land, America is committed to the security of Israel as a Jewish state….” Haven’t we heard that somewhere before?

In the weeks and months that followed, media figures and politicians started to repeat the special phrase, a hidden message to Jews, a message of subservience — though most White people were clueless about the coded language. Republicans Jack Ryan and Eric Cantor, Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer, and countless others, all repeated the phrase almost word-for-word. Assistant Secretary of State William Burns publicly decried moves that might “imperil the future of Israel as a Jewish state. …Within the next decade or so, Jews will be a minority in the area encompassing Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.” I wonder what Mr. Burns thought about the changing demographics of Texas, California, and North Carolina. Do demographic trends there imperil the White majority? Do they threaten the existence of Texas as a White state? Do they threaten the existence of America as a White nation?

Fast forward to the Biden administration. On March 8 of last year, US State Department spokesman Ned Price uttered almost the same exact phrase imposed on our so-called leaders almost 20 years ago, saying how concerned the administration is about “Israel’s continuing identity as a Jewish and democratic state….”

A few years earlier, during the final month of the Obama administration, Secretary of State John Kerry said that America’s resources were being readied and deployed to “ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state….” The same year, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told us that “Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state has been the US position for years.” No kidding, Ben. What about a state for White European people? That is essentially forbidden — and, more than that, any discussion of such a state that does not condemn the idea as “racist” is also essentially forbidden in our great “free” “democracies.”

Hilary Clinton chimed in, vowing to protect Israel “as a Jewish, democratic state….” Barack Obama gave two speeches three days apart in 2011 using the exact same phrase, “Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people….” This use of the same boilerplate text by all these “leaders” is a coincidence like Kamala Harris is beautiful.

An editorial in New York’s Jewish Post openly called for us to find ways “to protect Israel as a Jewish state with [an] ever growing Jewish majority.” Why, then, do the Jewish media and their followers tell us it is wrong to want America to have an ever-growing White majority?

In negotiations between Palestinians and Israel’s Labour Party, the Jewish side requested that, as part of the price for peace, Palestinian refugees must renounce any claim to return to Israel, and must further “recognise Israel as a Jewish state for eternity.” That’s an expression of their concern — their imperative requirement — for the racial integrity of their population. That’s the way the Jews view it. And White politicians are supposed to support Jewish racial integrity and Israel as a racial state, while at the same time they must never express concern for White racial integrity or concern about the survival of France, Russia, Germany, Britain, or America as White nations.

Who is more likely to survive — the race which denies it even exists, which is afraid to speak out for its own interests except with weasel words and dissimulation? Or the race that openly asserts that it is right, moral, and necessary that it continue to exist and that it have its own exclusive territory to guarantee its future? The Jews have their advocates aplenty, born and bought. They have their racial state.

White people need to shed their fear and show their strength. We need to stand up and say that it is right and good and moral for our people to survive — for our people to have our own countries — for White children to continue being born. And the group that is saying that uncompromisingly and continuously and responsibly in every land where White people dwell is the National Alliance. Join us today.

[Scott Free]

Well said!
I'm not sure how to make a new post, I apologize in advance if this is off topic. I think this reply is related to the subject matter above in a way.

I read today that somewhere in Australia "they" are giving prison sentences to those who have a swastika flag on display inside their own homes. This is what I think.

As a mother [re]peats over and over NO to a baby, hearing the NO makes the baby perform the action more often as the baby gets attention aka power and control through performing that action. Perhaps the same [ap]plies in this scenario, the harder those temporarily in a position of power push, the louder they scream NO, the harder it backfires.

As the boy who cries wolf, this is the jew who cries Whitey/Nazi, the wolf eats the boy who cried wolf as the community grows wise to the tom-foolery and ignores his cries, the same is [oc]curing in the jew who cries nazi scenario, the nature of the situation at hand leads to backfire [a]gainst the trickster, at-least thats one way to see it.

One way to see it is this, as I heard from a man who spent time in prison, the more the guards shake them down, the harder they try to control, the sharper and wiser those locked-up become.

One way to see it is this, in my opinion, the Swastika is the most powerful symbol on the planet, the more it is hidden, the more it is covered up, the stronger it will become to those who wield it's power, it may be a few, but the power becomes concentrated like a powerful (ex)tract of it's original form, a highly concentrated form that packs a punch 10x or 100x or 1000X or 10,000x it's original force. Those who hold it near their heart will shine it's power through their eyes, through their voice and energy. The waving of a flag is one thing, to hold it in your heart and mind, the symbol that generally strikes fear, mystery, hatred, confusion and awe into the heart and mind of the viewer fortifies a man into something higher and mightier.

Scott Free