I always liked this 2001 SDV by Dr. Pierce where he read from Jerry Rubin's book, Do it!:
---
Disgusting 1960's radical Jewish change agents,
Jerry Rubin (L) and Abbie Hoffman
Self-Discipline and Moral Health
By Dr. William Pierce
Hello!
Well, the murder of White farmers and the gang-rape of White women by
AIDS-infected Blacks continues apace in South Africa, as does the
seizure and trashing of White farms in Rhodesia. Rhodesia's Black
dictator, Robert Mugabe, is boasting openly now of his intent to run all
Whites out of Rhodesia. He understands now that no other country will
come to the aid of the White Rhodesians, and he can do anything he wants
to them. The British government of Tony Blair talks about not letting
Britain's cricket team play in Rhodesia, and the U.S. government of
George Bush talks about imposing visa restrictions on Mugabe and members
of his government if he doesn't behave himself, and so Mugabe is
laughing at them and proceeding with his plan to ethnically cleanse
Rhodesia.
I could talk more about these things happening to our kinsmen in
southern Africa and about the failure of our corrupt and treasonous
governments to do anything to stop what is happening. I could talk more
about the way in which the Jew-controlled news media in America
consistently ignore these things: the same media which spearheaded the
effort to persuade Americans only a decade ago to apply economic and
diplomatic pressure to White South Africans until they turned their
country over to Blacks.
I also could talk about more horrible Black-on-White crimes which have
been committed in America recently and about the refusal of the
controlled media to report these crimes. There's certainly plenty of
that happening -- and it's important to publicize it, as I often have
done in earlier broadcasts.
Today, however, perhaps you will bear with me while I talk about a much
more prosaic matter: less blood-stirring than the murder and rape of our
kinsmen in southern Africa and less provocative than the reporting of
crimes against our people in America. What I want to talk about today is
what's happening to the character and the spirit of our people. That's
important, and in a sense it's as much at the root of our other problems
as is the control of our news and entertainment media by the Jews or the
corruption of our political process and of our governmental and social
institutions resulting from that control.
Actually, I've talked about this before, but I'll try to deal with
different aspects of it today. In discussing the changing character and
moral quality of our people it's important for us to have some fixed
standards to which we can refer. I don't want to sound like some old
geezer complaining about how much tougher he had it as a kid than
today's kids do. So I've collected input from a number of other
observers: teachers, parents, employers. I've tried to get balanced and
reasonably accurate views of the state of morals in America today and 50
years ago and to examine the differences and to try to understand what
caused the differences.
I've also examined statistics where they were available. It's difficult
to quantify some moral elements numerically, but others can be
quantified -- or at least, correlated in a reasonable way with things
which can be quantified. For example, I believe that it is reasonable to
correlate the level of personal debt with the ability to postpone
gratification: the greater the level of personal debt -- typically
mortgage debt and credit card debt -- the less the ability to postpone
gratification. In the last 30 years the average personal debt in
America, measured as a percentage of income, has increased 70 per cent.
People are much more likely today to spend money they don't have than
they were 30 years ago. And there is, of course, a penalty for that.
People end up spending a great deal more for the things they want if
they borrow money to buy them, and so they end up being able to buy less
than the person who earns his money before he buys and therefore pays no
interest.
Without beating around the bush, I'll tell you now what I have concluded
about the change in the moral quality of our people during the past half
century. American men and women today are softer, weaker, less reliable,
less willing to accept responsibility, less patriotic, less able to
endure discomfort or hardship, less willing to postpone gratification,
and more willing to tolerate weakness and corruption in others than they
were 50 years ago. And American men -- White men -- are less masculine
than they were 50 years ago.
I haven't studied the matter enough to decide whether women are less
feminine than they were. Certainly, there still are many very feminine
women in America, but there also are more than enough unfeminine women
running around today, and these un-feminine women -- these feminists --
certainly have more influence and are doing much more damage than they
were permitted to do in the past. Whether American women as a whole are
less feminine than in the past, however, I can't say. But it definitely
is the case that American men are less manly on the average than they
used to be. And by "less manly" I don't mean less sexually active; I
mean less dignified, less self-reliant, less dependable, less
self-confident, less courageous. Today they talk more and whine more,
are less inclined to keep their commitments, and are more inclined to
wait for someone to tell them what to do. They aren't as tough as they
used to be.
Our people are less disciplined than they used to be. More specifically,
they have less self-discipline, less ability to use will-power to make
themselves do what they believe they ought to do. There is in each of us
a combination of infantile urges and more mature desires and needs. The
infant seeks only to gratify himself and to avoid pain. The
well-developed man or woman has a more inclusive concept of "self" than
the infant. He is concerned not only about his own needs but also about
the needs of his family, his community, his clan, his nation, his race.
And the well-developed man or woman has longer-range needs than the
infant. The infant wants instant gratification, instant relief from
discomfort. That's all that is of concern to the infant; nothing else
matters. The well-developed adult, on the other hand, thinks about
future needs and future dangers and is able to balance these against
present feelings: against present desires and fears and pain. He
subordinates the present to the future. If he decides that a future need
is important, he will suppress present desires, endure present
discomfort, face present dangers, in order to achieve his future goal.
The ability to do this is a function of a person's degree of
self-discipline. The person without self-discipline remains infantile in
his behavior, and often in his attitudes as well. The person with a high
degree of self-discipline is able to keep his infantile urges under firm
control and to marshal all of his resources, all of his strength and
intelligence, to accomplish what he believes is most important.
This undoubtedly is an over-simplification, but I believe that it is
nevertheless useful to look at all of the aspects of moral decline I
mentioned earlier -- the greater softness, the lesser dependability, the
lesser self-reliance, the lesser ability to postpone gratification, the
lesser degree of patriotism -- as consequences of lesser
self-discipline. By lumping all of these aspects of moral decline
together as a decline in self-discipline, we only need to ask ourselves:
what has caused our decline in self-discipline, on the average? Why does
the average American man or woman today have less self-discipline than
the average American of 1940 or 1950?
I believe that there's more than one answer, more than one reason for
the lesser degree of self-discipline today. In the first place,
self-discipline develops as a result of the application of external
discipline, especially when we are young. There is, of course, a
genetically determined component of self-discipline, the innate
self-discipline of the race as a whole, which evolved with us over
millions of years and enabled us to survive. Because our temperate-zone
environment was less forgiving, because our temperate-zone environment
imposed a harsher external discipline on us -- and on other races which
also evolved in the North -- than the tropical-zone environment imposed
on the races which evolved in the Tropics, we and the North Asian
peoples -- the Japanese and the Chinese, for example -- have greater
innate self-discipline than Blacks. But self-discipline also is the
consequence of training, of the deliberate application of external
discipline, when we are young. And it is clear that there is much less
of that today than 50 years ago.
The raising of children in America has been feminized, softened.
Spankings and other forms of corporal punishment are out. In fact, the
prevailing attitude among White parents today is that any sort of
punishment or denial is a bad thing. Disobedience no longer merits a
whipping or the withdrawal of an allowance. Disrespect to a parent no
longer earns a hard slap across the face and being confined to one's
room for a few days. Self-indulgence in children actually is encouraged
today.
Daily chores, which used to be the norm for children, no longer are
required. The number of children who are trained on a musical instrument
-- or who are trained in any way at all -- has declined drastically. In
America's feminized child-raising environment, to require a ten-year-old
child to practice for two hours every day on the piano or the violin is
considered cruel and unusual. To require a 12-year-old to spend four
hours a day studying Latin or mathematics after school is equally
abhorrent to television-bred parents.
So the lack of external discipline for children today definitely is a
big part of the problem. And why is external discipline no longer
imposed? Well, for one thing we live in a less demanding world -- or so
it seems to most Americans at the moment. We are fat and soft and
spoiled. Technological advances have given the average family so many
labor-saving appliances -- in the laundry room, in the kitchen, in the
yard -- that there is less labor needed. The tendency today is not to
repair things or clean things and reuse them, but to throw them out and
buy new ones. So chores for the kids aren't really the economic
necessity they used to be. And with both parents working outside the
home -- with the day-care center replacing the parents -- the
enforcement of proper standards of behavior becomes more difficult. Most
parents don't even try. They just let their kids absorb their morals
from television and then run with the pack.
But there are other reasons why external discipline no longer is imposed
on children: propaganda against it, for example -- propaganda which
makes discipline a bad word, propaganda which makes the whole concept of
discipline suspect and Politically Incorrect. Discipline is "fascist."
Disciplined is what the German Nazis were, with their heel-clicking and
saluting and their "Jawohl, mein Führer!" The disciplined Germans were
evil and racist. We've seen that in a thousand Hollywood films and a
thousand TV serials. Much better to be relaxed and informal and
insubordinate. That's the American way. Take the Black man as a model in
this regard. Discipline leads to the gas chambers and to guilt, guilt,
guilt! To discipline a child is to warp him and make a little Nazi out
of him. That's the party line which has been pumped into us by
television and Hollywood for the past 50 years.
For the most part the party line the Jews have fed us from Hollywood has
been implicit rather than explicit. Implicit propaganda is generally
more effective, because it's less obvious and more difficult to counter.
When they launched the "counterculture revolution" on America's college
and university campuses 40 years ago, however, they came out of the
closet. They denounced any sort of discipline or self-restraint in quite
explicit terms. The assault on discipline was just one front in a Jewish
war against everything traditional. The aim was not only to turn Gentile
students against authority and to get them to abandon their own standard
of conduct: it was to turn the whole Gentile world upside down.
At the same time that discipline was denounced explicitly as "Nazi,"
there were assaults on so-called "racism" and "sexism" and traditional
morality and traditional standards of civility and decorum and grooming.
There were demands for more Black students to be recruited and more
Black professors to be hired, regardless of qualifications; for women to
be treated like men; for coed dormitories; for an end to the emphasis on
Western -- that is, White -- civilization, which was denounced as racist
and sexist. It was the beginning of Political Correctness: Whites are
bad, Blacks are good; heterosexual men are suspect, women and gay men
are okay; discipline and self-restraint are stuffy and old-fashioned,
licentiousness, incontinence, and wantonness are "cool." Fidel Castro,
Che Guevara, Ho Chi Minh, Eldridge Cleaver, and Malcolm X became campus
heroes and role models.
The amazing thing is that the Jews were able to persuade not only
homosexuals and feminists and non-Whites to go along with their crusade
against traditional Gentile society; they also were able to persuade
heterosexual White men and women. Clearly, there already was a good deal
of softness in our society, especially at our universities.
Many groups were behind the crusade against discipline, but no one
expressed its spirit better than the two Jewish youth activists, Jerry
Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, leaders of the Youth International Party, or
"yippies" for short. These two Jews probably got as much media publicity
as all the other counterculture revolutionaries together. Rubin's book,
Do It!, was published in 1970 by the Jewish publisher Simon and
Schuster, which is owned by multibillionaire Jewish media boss Sumner
Redstone, who also owns MTV and CBS, among other media. You can find
Rubin's book in nearly every public and university library, and it would
do you good to read it, but I'll read you just a few excerpts now, in
which Rubin explains what the Jewish counterculture revolution is all
about. And I apologize ahead of time for the obscene language. Part of
the Jewish strategy was to break down all the traditional standards of
behavior and discourse and to make civility and polite language seem
old-fashioned. I quote:
"Puritanism leads us to Vietnam. Sexual insecurity results in a
supermasculinity trip called imperialism. Amerikan foreign policy,
especially in Vietnam, makes no sense except sexually. Amerika has a
frustrated penis, trying to drive itself into Vietnam's tiny slit to
prove it is The Man. The revolution declares war on Original Sin, the
dictatorship of parents over their kids, Christian morality, capitalism,
and supermasculinity trips. . . .
"Our tactic is to send niggers and longhair scum invading white
middle-class homes, fucking on the living room floor, crashing on the
chandeliers, spewing sperm on the Jesus pictures, breaking the
furniture, and smashing Sunday school napalm-blood Amerika forever.
"We will do whatever is forbidden. We will outrage Amerika until the
bourgeoisie dies of apoplexy. We will turn Amerika's colleges into
nudist camps." -- end of quote --
Rubin says much more -- for example, he tells his young readers that
they should kill their parents because parents are repressive and keep
the kids from doing what they want to do -- and he always spells
"America" and "American" with a "k" instead of a "c" in order to suggest
a German and therefore a Nazi flavor. He ends his book with the
counterculture manifesto, and again I quote:
"At community meetings all over the land, Bob Dylan will replace the
National Anthem. There will be no more jails, courts, or police. The
White House will become a crash pad for anybody without a place to stay
in Washington. The world will become one big commune with free food and
housing, everything shared. All watches and clocks will be destroyed.
Barbers will go to rehabilitation camps, where they will grow their hair
long. There will be no such crime as "stealing" because everything will
be free. The Pentagon will be replaced by an LSD experimental farm.
There will be no more schools or churches because the entire world will
become one church and school. People will farm in the morning, make
music in the afternoon, and fuck whenever they want to." -- end of quote
--
Again, I apologize for the language, but I really wanted you to get the
flavor of what the Jews were pushing on our university campuses. I was
there at the time, as a professor. The kids were absorbing the Jews'
propaganda, and most of the parents were too busy with their own affairs
to pay attention. Books such as Do It! were very widely read, and
despite the childish phrasing and shock-effect style were taken
seriously by millions of young, White Americans, just as was the Jewish
singer Bob Zimmerman, who used the name Bob Dylan.
Although Rubin and Hoffman and the other Jews on our campuses went
further and expressed things more brazenly and more crudely than the
mainstream media, the mainstream media supported them -- as witnessed,
for example, by Simon and Schuster's publication and distribution of
Rubin's book -- because all of the Jews in the media were peddling the
same poison, just packaged differently for different segments of our
population. And very few people who knew better were willing to speak
out against what was happening, from fear of being denounced as
"anti-Semitic" or "racist." The people who knew better also had become
too soft and too lacking in self-discipline.
Certainly we ourselves are to be blamed for failing to structure our
society in a way to keep ourselves disciplined as our technological
advances freed us from natural disciplinary pressures. The attitude in
America during the past few generations has been, "I want my children to
have an easier life than I had, a softer life." The attitude instead
should have been, "It is my responsibility to ensure that my children
grow up to be strong, self-disciplined men and women." And we should
have structured our schools and other institutions, our child-raising
practices, accordingly. But we didn't. And because we didn't, we have a
generation of White Americans who are softer and flabbier -- mentally,
morally, and physically -- than we had two generations ago.
In addition to this huge mistake on our part, however, we made the even
bigger mistake of permitting Jews to infiltrate our society and take
over virtually all of our mass media of news and entertainment, which in
the television age are able to determine what most of our people think.
And the Jews have used their control of the media to exacerbate the
indiscipline resulting from our own laxity. They have done everything
they could to make us even softer and flabbier and therefore less
willing and less able to resist their further encroachments.
Nature does not for long tolerate softness and indiscipline in man or in
beast. Either we will free ourselves from Jewish influence and then
restructure our society so as to make our race fit once again, or we
will cease to exist as a race. This is a fact of life, and it is a fact
which justifies whatever means are necessary, even the bloodiest and
most radical means, to bring our people once again to moral health.