It is currently Sun Aug 25, 2019 9:51 am


Scalp Dance

  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Will Williams

  • Posts: 2199
  • Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Scalp Dance

PostMon Jul 18, 2016 11:24 am

Scalp Dance

by Dr. William Pierce

I've been reading one of the new books that my sponsor, National Vanguard Books, has just added to its catalog. It's Scalp Dance, by Thomas Goodrich, and it's a history of the conflict between Plains Indians and White settlers moving west in the years immediately after the American Civil War, between about 1865 and 1879. Much of the book consists of eyewitness accounts by White soldiers, scouts, and settlers involved in the conflict. The book is interesting to me for its information on that period of our history: information about the hardships that our ancestors overcame in conquering this country and building a civilization here, information about the courage and tenacity and ingenuity they displayed in fighting against a ferocious and cruel foe.

The book also is interesting as an anthropological study, a study of the racial differences, the behavioral differences, the differences in mentality and attitude between the Indians and the Whites. One of these differences of most immediate concern to our ancestors was the almost unbelievable cruelty and sadism of the Indians. The fate of White captives almost invariably was much worse than death: it involved hideous and prolonged torture and mutilation, and for the women, gang rape as well.

The deceitfulness of the Indians also was something that took getting used to. The Indians have often complained that the Great White Father in Washington didn't keep his promises, and of course, that's still true. Politicians always have spoken with forked tongues. But the lies of the White politicians were nothing compared to the everyday deceit and trickery of the Indians. The Plains Indians quickly learned that many of the Whites freshly arrived from the east had been indoctrinated with liberal propaganda about the "noble savage" in their schools and churches. These innocents headed west with their heads pumped full of foolish notions about the basic decency of the Indians and determined to be fair in all their dealings with them.

When a group of Indians spotted a wagon train of such prospective settlers unaccompanied by soldiers or experienced scouts, they would approach with smiles and other indications of friendly intent, sometimes waving a white flag. Almost certainly there were good Christian souls in those wagon trains who told their husbands, "Put away your rifle, you fool! Can't you see that they're friendly? If you're holding a rifle, that will just provoke them." When the Indians got close enough to evaluate the situation fully, they either would strike immediately or mix with the prospective settlers and wait for the opportune moment to begin cutting throats and taking scalps. Then, after a day or so of amusing themselves raping the White women and listening to the screams of the White men staked out on the ground with a small fire burning at their crotches, they would move on and leave the scraps for the wolves and coyotes. Such fools soon enough were weeded out of those Whites who settled in the plains and survived Indian attacks, but there seemed to be an inexhaustible supply of them back East, where the preachers continued pumping new heads full of dangerous nonsense. It's really too bad that the preachers and other propagandists of the "noble savage" school didn't head west themselves to try out their ideas on real savages.

This is the aspect of Scalp Dance that I found most interesting. One can see some fascinating parallels between the experiences of our pioneer ancestors and what's happening to us today. Basically we White Americans today are the same people as those White pioneers pushing west 130 years ago and fighting the Indians for the right to do so. Probably we're not as tough as they were, because our lives have been softer than theirs were even before they started west from Philadelphia or Boston or Baltimore. And dysgenic breeding certainly must have lowered our quality a trifle: kids who wouldn't have survived long enough to breed then are the most prolific element in the overmedicated, overprotected White population today. But still, today we're about 90 percent of what we were in 1870.

Back then we got our act together and pretty well took care of our Indian problem. It cost us a huge amount of pain and tears and blood, but we prevailed. We destroyed the savages, we conquered the land for our people, and since then five generations of our people have lived on that land. Today, however, we have problems that in some ways are very similar to our Indian problem then. The difference is that today we're not getting our act together.

As I said, we licked the Plains Indians; we gave them a beating from which they never recovered and never will. Today the mongrels, the mestizos, pouring across our southern border are related to them, of course: they're a similar sort of Indian, along with some Spanish admixture. If we had our act together we'd stop that mestizo invasion in its tracks, and then we'd clean out every one of them who has managed to sneak across in the last 50 years, along with all the descendants of those who sneaked across, regardless of whether they were born south of the border or north of the border. We'd herd them back across the border the same way we herded the Plains Indians onto reservations. And the mestizos would stay south of the border, because we would stop playing the silly games the U.S. Border Patrol plays with them today. Even if one did manage to get across without being shot, what could he do? He would be recognized immediately, just because he wouldn't be White, and then he'd be shot.

That is the way our ancestors who whipped the Plains Indians would have dealt with the mestizo invasion. Of course, the reason the mestizos are invading our country today is because our ancestors whipped the Plains Indians. It's not just that the Plains Indians would have as gladly scalped any mestizos as White men coming into their territory, it is that after our ancestors whipped the Indians they built a civilization on the prairie, with farms and ranches and towns and railroads. They made the prairie productive in a way that neither the Plains Indians nor the mestizos ever could. It was after the Whites had eliminated the danger of being scalped and had created wealth north of the border that the mestizos came pouring across, hoping to share in the White man's wealth.

Which is to say that, when our ancestors solved their Indian problem, they prepared the way for our mestizo problem today. That's the way the world always has been: one problem always leads to another, and there never is a time without problems or dangers or struggle. The objective always must be to survive, to assure the survival of one's people, to prevail, and to grow stronger, so that one's people can overcome the next problem.

So why aren't we prevailing today, when our ancestors would have? I said a moment ago that they got their act together, and we don't seem to be able to do that. What does that mean, specifically?

Certainly, our ancestors had weaknesses, and they made mistakes. They weren't an ideal bunch of survivors, by any standard. Because their government was a democracy, it was corrupt, with politicians then, just as today, concerned almost entirely with being elected or re-elected and willing to say or do anything to that end. But at least the politicians then couldn't expect to win many votes by catering to non-White minorities or to homosexuals or to feminists, and there were almost no Jews in the country.

In the eastern cities there were many muddle-headed liberals, including many in the schools, teaching the equality of races and individuals. We had just gone through a horribly bloody and destructive civil war, in which the notion of racial equality had infected the minds of many citizens on the winning side, although by no means a majority of them. We had Christian preachers, then as now, morally disarming our people by preaching that the Indians were our "brothers" and that we just needed to be nice to them, and then they would be nice to us. We had newspapers insinuating this poison into the minds of our people. But we didn't have television, and not even the newspapers were unanimous in their liberalism.

Most important, there was no hostile element inside our ranks strong enough to consolidate our weaknesses and to exacerbate them to the point where we became powerless in the face of our external enemies. We had, for all practical purposes, no Jews, and the Jews who already were here had not yet fastened their grip on our mass media. That is the key difference between then and now.

Many of our people were confused then and had wacky ideas. Many of them had sectarian grievances against their fellow Whites as a result of the Civil War or that they had brought over from Europe with them, and these sectarian or nationalist grievances were more bitter than any grievances they might develop against the Indians. We had traitors among our own people: businessmen who sold rifles to the Indians so long as they could do so at a profit.

But we had no malevolent element working to turn all of these weaknesses against us and destroy us. These weaknesses were not glorified and preached to our children and to our young people with the intent of crippling them morally. We did not have a strongly coherent, racially self-conscious minority in our midst promoting policies intended to increase alienation among our people, intended to weaken our sense of identity, intended to undermine our feelings of solidarity with our own people, intended to keep us confused and divided and make us easy prey for this predatory minority.

We did not have Jewish television. We did not have Sumner Redstone and MTV. We did not Michael Eisner and the Weinstein brothers and their films promoting racial mixing and homosexuality and feminism. We did not have Gerald Levin and his Warner record companies promoting rap music among impressionable young Whites. We did not have a Jew-dominated Madison Avenue promoting all of the same, destructive filth in magazine advertising. We did not have a Jewish lobby controlling the political process and the government in this country. Our university campuses were not in the grip of Political Correctness. The teachers and administrators in our public schools were not forced to march in ideological lockstep, forced to indoctrinate the kids in their charge with the same sort of lies and poison with which their parents were being indoctrinated by television.

Again: we did not have Jewish television then, and we do have it today. That is why we were able to get our act together in 1870 and beat the Plans Indians and claim the prairies for our people, and it is why we are not able to get our act together today and can only stand by in confused helplessness as the mestizos swarm into America and take back the land that our ancestors won for us with so much blood and pain and sacrifice and heroism.

That's the same reason we let Blacks and Asians infest our schools and can't figure how to stop it. It's the reason we let our cities go to hell as the Blacks take them over. It's the reason we let them commit outrage after outrage against our people and don't know what to do about it except give them more welfare and other unearned benefits. If in 1870 Blacks had gone on a rampage the way they did in Cincinnati a few weeks ago or in Seattle a few weeks before that, beating White women senseless, we would have simply cleaned them out. There wouldn't be a Black left alive in a city where they had done that sort of thing. Today we just watch them destroy our country and brutalize our women while we sit on our hands in confusion.

Every vice and weakness we had in 1870 we have a hundred times worse today -- and today we have a satanically clever and vicious gang of predators orchestrating those vices and coordinating those weaknesses in order to keep us morally paralyzed and unable to resist their predation.

You know, I've had a number of people tell me that if permit ourselves to become a minority in America during the next few decades, as the demographers predict, it will be because we aren't fit enough to survive. If the Blacks and mestizos and Vietnamese and Koreans are taking our country away from us, it's because they're more fit than we are, and this land will be the breeding ground for future generations of their people instead of ours. More to the point is the claim that if we let the Jews come into our country, infiltrate our society, gain monopoly control of our mass media, and then use that control to paralyze and to destroy us, it is proof that they are the fitter race, and it is proper for them to replace us as masters of the planet.

Some people tell me that in a smug, mocking sort of way. They're the totally alienated, the people who don't care at all who is master of the planet except as it affects them as individuals, and who think it's funny that I or anyone else should be worried what happens to our race after we die. But others are quite serious when they say to me: "Doesn't the fact that the Jews were able to sneak in and get control of our media and then our government, that they are able to persuade our women to sleep with Blacks, that they are able to make 200 million White lemmings parrot whatever nonsense the Jews choose to feed them through their television screens, that they are able to do all of these things to us while we do nothing in response -- doesn't this prove that the Jews are smarter than we are, superior to us as a race, and more fit to survive? Doesn't that mean that our extinction and the Jews' survival will be in accord with the natural order?"

Well, let's look at it another way. Suppose that you are driving with your wife or girlfriend along a city freeway late at night, and you accidentally take a wrong exit and find yourself driving through a Black neighborhood, with Blacks swarming all over the streets and sidewalks. And then you have a flat tire. And because of the restrictive laws in your state you don't even have a firearm in your car to protect yourself. And when the Blacks realize your predicament, they surround your car and begin smashing the windows with bricks, so that they can pull you and your woman out. Does this in itself mean that the Blacks are superior to you?

Imagine that your child is playing in your yard. A neighbor's pit bull gets loose from his chain, comes into your yard, attacks your child, and mauls him to death. Does this prove that the pit bull, as a breed, is superior to you and your kind, as a breed?

In a sense, whoever survives in such an encounter is superior to the loser. But we ought to look at the matter in a broader framework before we draw final conclusions. We know that, as a breed, we can destroy the pit bulls of the world as a breed whenever we decide that's what we ought to do. We know that the only reason the Blacks are a danger to us now is that there are other forces involved over which the Blacks have no control.

It is true that the Jews slipped in, got the advantage over us, and now are pushing us rapidly toward extinction -- but we aren't there yet. If we give up now -- if we say, "Oh, look, the Jews have gotten the advantage over us," and then we do nothing about that -- then we have proved ourselves unfit to survive. But in fact, the Jews' advantage is a precarious one, based entirely on their control of the mass media of news and entertainment. If they lose that control, then they also lose their control over our government, and then they will be the ones headed for extinction.

They understand that, of course, and they are determined to hang on. An amusing example of this occurred just a few days ago, when there was a series of changes of executive personnel in the media giant NBC. NBC itself is divided into news and entertainment divisions. The president of NBC News, Andrew Lack, moved up to become president of NBC. Neal Shapiro, executive producer of "Dateline NBC," moved up to become president of NBC News. Jonathan Wald, who was the executive producer of the show "NBC Nightly News" will take over NBC's "Today Show." Jeff Zucker, who held the "Today Show" position earlier, is now president of NBC's entertainment division. And so on, for many other executive positions at NBC: a real game of musical chairs. The interesting thing is that all of the executives involved are Jews. And that's pretty much the way it is with the other media giants too. They really believe that they've got it all sewed up, and that no one can challenge them. That's why their propaganda has become so blatant recently.

But you know, things change. Sometimes they change unexpectedly and radically -- even things that seem to be all sewed up. And when the future of the race is at stake, I'm not the only one likely to do something radical.

One of the outstanding combat pilots of all time was Hans Ulrich Rudel. He logged more than 2500 combat missions during the Second World War and was the most highly decorated pilot of that war. He sank a Soviet battleship, and he destroyed more than 500 Soviet tanks. He was shot down behind Soviet lines several times and was severely wounded. He finished the war flying with only one leg.

When he was down behind enemy lines, surrounded by Red Army troops advancing with submachine guns, his gunner surrendered and then perished in the gulag. But Rudel never surrendered, no matter how hopeless the situation seemed. His motto was: "Only he is lost who gives himself up for lost."

It is a motto that it would be well for those to ponder who believe that the Jews are so powerful that we never can force them to remove their fangs from our necks and then get them off our backs. "Only he is lost who gives himself up for lost."
---
© 2000 National Vanguard Books
Offline
User avatar

Will Williams

  • Posts: 2199
  • Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Why is OK beer less than 50% alcohol?

PostSat Jan 19, 2019 5:22 pm

A racially loyal Christian neighbor here where I live takes a dim view of so-called "Native Americans." He calls them indians and claims lots of people around here who pass for White are actually part indian, whether they claim it or not. His essay below raises interesting questions, like what is the state of our race in the "OK State," Oklahoma? I overlook my friend's "Biblical truth" stuff that he interjects and learn why OK residents must travel out of state to purchase real beer. :D http://sacredtruthministries.com/articl ... ke-signals

[T]o see what the original indians looked like,
just go to Oklahoma where they were herded... -R.B.


"It's hard to distort that [history] which never existed. The indians had no written language and would not today were it not for Christian missionaries or eventual half-breeds who developed the various written indian alphabets quite recently in modern history.

It's really amazing that that a people (Europeans) who have a 4,000 year history of writing history (with only a slight aberration of dishonest individuals and soviet, atheist, evolutionist, liberal humanists writing false history and hating the truth) are demonized and accused of writing a "distorted view" of indian history, when the opposition has nothing to hold up to it by comparison other than "oral tradition" (including naturalistic mythology and shamanism) —which "oral tradition" changes when political expediency arises and the tribal chieftains are taught by the Talmudists (who taught the Negroes) "how to play the game".

Before the modern world-wide epidemic of the mental illness of "political correctness", the Indians maintained that they simply killed the people on the land before them and took the land. Before "political correctness" machismo ruled, and it was manly to tell the straight-up truth.

Genocide is what the indians perpetrated against their own people too. The "noble savage" is as rare as the "Nobel Savage" (I haven't seen any awards over the past century, but since I mention it, look for it in the future) —it is a myth. The Indians, north, central, and south were savages, they predated upon the weaker, smaller tribes of their own people (or anyone else, those there before them, the Celto-Iberians, Phoenicians, etc.) and enslaved them, bred with them, and ATE them.

[—who were NOT white, despite what many people who are part indian want to believe; if there were "white indian" tribes, they were not known as Indians; they were called Indians because Columbus thought he reached INDIA. They were savages, cannibals, filthy, ran around half naked, migratory criminals who developed little more than chistling pieces of flint into arrow or spearheads and the men did little other than hunt or war and laze around the rest of the time while their women did all the work. Good work if you can get it! (or are conscience devoid to God and man).]

Some indian tribes were "whiter" than others, depending upon how many European women and children they kidnapped and raped and bred with and raised as indians.

However, once the Age of Political Correctness arrived and the indians learned that they could make TONS OF WAMPUM by claiming they were the "first nation"... then their "oral tradition" took a 180 degree about-face pale-face. Now they get subsidies, tax-free, casinos, and a ton of welfare benefits the average person is not even aware of, bleeding the white man dry.

Incidentally, in Oklahoma, beer by law is only about 50% (or less) of beer anywhere else (if you want real beer you have to drive to another state). The only reason for this (which is unspoken) is the indian population who "cannot hold their fire-water" and "go off the reservation". Of course, the real reason has probably, (to use an ironic term) "whitewashed" and "buried" because the real reason would not be politically correct.

In the U.S. southeast and other states people (who are part indian) believe indians were white; but that is only because the local population has intermarried so much that most everyone who is "white" in those regions is part indian—and thus, it is ignorantly and falsely assumed that indians are white. This is a false tautology. It is sort of like the evolutionists who say "this mollulsk is 13 billion years old". When asked how they know that the mollusks are 13 billion years old, they reply, "because it was found in a strata of rock that is 13 billions years old". When asked how they know that the rock strata is 13 billion years old, they reply, "because mollusks that are 13 billion years old are found in that strata".

However, to see what the original indians looked like, just go to Oklahoma where they were herded. It is the same thing with hispanics and "persians" (Iraqi, Iranians) and Afghans, and modern "greeks" and modern "syrians", etc.—the lighter colored representatives are promoted in PR events (brainwashing), those who have intermarried with whites, and thus they are declared by the corrupt government and corrupt department of education and corrupt media to be "white". History is "proven true" the more intermarriage takes place, and thus the contrast is hidden more and more. When you hide what is white and what is black and show people only various "off-white" shades, then people begin to believe the lie that white and black don't exist.

This is in violation of what God commanded. Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil, that put darkness for light and light for darkness. God commanded His people to be separate. Christendom is being turned into Babylon ("confusion by mixing").

Pretty soon we will be told that blacks are actually "white". Advertisement and movies (not to mention socialist antichristian education) are brainwashing the youth into mixing with aliens, so that in a generation, white Christians will be less than 5% of a population that was once 95% white and Christian.

It is easy to brainwash a non-reading population (or one that only read newspapers and pot-boiler propaganda "New York Times Best-Seller titles, and not REAL history (books written before 1920, for the most part). It is easy to brainwash a non-Bible reading people—or one that only knows the HUMANISTIC modern retrograde interpretation (modern man thinking that God and history must conform to modern man's notions of "morality" and "fairness").

Return to Dr. William Pierce

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron