BEHIND LIBERALISM
William Pierce
Hello!
When anyone wants to eliminate a problem or overcome an obstacle, it's usually a big help to him to understand the nature of the problem or the obstacle. If he misunderstands the nature of the problem and bases his attempt to eliminate it on that misunderstanding, he's far more likely to fail than if he tackles the problem with a thorough understanding of its nature. That's self-evident, and probably my worst enemies would agree with me on that. And yet there are some very important problems that are frustrating us in our efforts to solve them simply because most of us have made no serious effort to understand their true nature. We have just assumed that the nature of the problems is self-evident when in fact it is not.
The most important example of this is the assumption that the reason our civilization is self-destructing is so-called "liberal" social and political policies. There is a general belief that we have a preponderance of liberals in our government, in the media, among school administrators, among Christian preachers, and so on, and that most of the White public goes along with the destructive policies of these leading liberals because most members of the public also are liberals.
And I'm using the word "liberal" to designate a person who has a particular set of beliefs, much in the way a Christian has a particular set of beliefs. That is, a Christian believes, among other things, that a man named Jesus of Nazareth, born approximately 2,000 years ago in Palestine, was the son of God; that he walked on water, resurrected the dead, and performed other miracles; and that after he was crucified at the demand of the Jews he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. And a liberal believes, among other things, that all featherless bipeds are "equal" — that is, that they all are born with the same potential and would be equal in their accomplishments if they all had the same advantages and opportunities.
And as I said, there is a very common assumption made that the ongoing destruction of our society and our civilization is the consequence of applying the fallacious belief system of the liberals to the formulation of public policy. But this very common assumption is incorrect — or perhaps it would be better to say that it misses the point. Liberal policies certainly are destructive, but they aren't the ultimate driving force behind the assault on Western civilization and our race. And so any attempt to restore our society to health and save our civilization from ruin based on an effort to change the beliefs of liberals — to convince liberals of the incorrectness of their ideas — is likely to fail. It is likely to fail because the problem is only superficially, but not fundamentally, the consequence of a group of people -- namely, liberals--basing their policies on a particular set of incorrect ideas, such as the innate equality of all featherless bipeds. The problem is not one of belief, but one of psychology, of human nature, and of the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by hidden agents.
I am sure that there are real liberals: that is, people who have thought about the world around them and then consciously adopted the liberal ideology. They constitute a fraction of a per cent of the people who adhere to liberal policies and pay lip service to liberal ideas. The rest — that is, nearly all so-called "liberals" — are liberals for the same reason that Catholics are Catholics and Lutherans are Lutherans and Buddhists are Buddhists. It has nothing to do with the ideologies of the various religions and everything to do with psychology. With a few rare exceptions, a Catholic is not a Catholic because he has thought about the world around him and decided that Catholicism is what makes the most sense. He is a Catholic because his parents and his neighbors are Catholics. He is a Catholic — or a Lutheran or a Buddhist — because he is a lemming, and lemmings don't make up their own minds about anything. They believe — really believe — whatever they think the people around them believe.
With liberals today it's not so much a matter of believing what one's parents or neighbors believe as it is believing what one perceives to be fashionable in one's peer group, and the perception most often comes from one's television screen. It is possible to persuade an occasional liberal that his view of the world is incorrect and his policies are destructive and he should straighten out his thinking, just as it is possible to persuade an occasional Lutheran that Martin Luther really was the Antichrist and that Lutherans should beg the Pope for forgiveness and return to Holy Mother Church. It's a hard sell in either case. And as I said, it misses the point.
The point is this: Liberals are tools. Most of them are not inherently evil or destructive, any more than a hammer used to smash a statue by Phidias is evil or a match used to burn a great library is evil. Liberals are morally neutral, like the hammer and the match. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. The evil is in the mind that plans the destruction and then uses the liberals to carry it out. And that force is the force that controls our mass media of news and entertainment. That mind is the mind that formulates the slant of the news and the content of the media entertainment; the mind that determines which news will be reported and how it will be reported, and which news will be suppressed; the mind that determines which trends will be made fashionable and which ideas will be deemed Politically Correct.
And it is that force, that mind, that malevolent spirit that we must counter: that we must be aware of in making our plan to restore our society to health and halt the ruin of our civilization. When I said a moment ago that our problem is not one of belief but one of psychology, of human nature, I meant that we should not focus our efforts on trying to change the beliefs of the liberals but rather on exposing and then destroying the malevolent entity that manipulates the liberals by exploiting their psychological compulsion to conform to perceived norms.
That's a fact, but as I said at the beginning, most people who're interested in eliminating the problem fail to see it that way. They still want to fight the liberals rather than the hidden force behind the liberals. What I'll do now is try to persuade you that my understanding of the nature of the problem is correct by providing a few examples or illustrations of the way in which the problem manifests itself.
We might note first the global nature of the problem, the global way in which it is being orchestrated. Almost everywhere one looks in the White world, one sees the same destructive forces at work, the same governmental policies, the same wrongheaded attitudes and fashions being promoted by the media. There are, of course, local differences of detail. The United States had a large population of Black slaves until 136 years ago, and no country in Europe has that sort of history. One would expect this difference to have a strong effect on racial attitudes and policies, but in fact the policies of governments throughout Europe and the party line promoted by the mass media of news and entertainment throughout Europe are in broad outline the same as those in the United States.
The denial of racial differences and the doctrinaire promotion of egalitarianism are as much policies of the mass media and the government in Germany, in France, and in the United Kingdom, for example, as in the United States. Most European countries have no common border with a non-White country, as the United States does, and yet one sees the same insanely destructive policy regarding non-White immigration nearly everywhere in Europe that one sees in the United States. Nowhere is non-White immigration popular, and yet every government pursues a policy of bringing non-White immigrants into the country and then favoring and protecting them after they are in. One sees the same sort of corruption of the society by Turks, by Arabs, by Blacks, by Pakistanis, by Vietnamese, by Chinese, or by other non-Whites in the big cities of Sweden or Denmark or England as in the United States. The majority of the Whites everywhere are against it, while their supposedly democratic governments and the media are for it.
A good example of this is what's been happening in northern England recently, where Asian gangs have been attacking and terrorizing Whites, and the government and the media have been trying to blame it on "White racists," such as members of the British National Party, the BNP. In fact the dynamics of the current racial rioting in the Manchester, England, area and in nearby Leeds is remarkably similar to the racial conflicts we've seen in places like Seattle and Cincinnati recently in this country. In Seattle and Cincinnati, Blacks were attacking Whites — specifically targeting Whites, especially young, White women, for vicious beatings fueled by racial hatred--while the media tried hard to persuade the public that race had nothing to do with the attacks, and the politicians were making promises of more handouts to the Blacks and looking for Whites to arrest in connection with the rioting so that they could not be accused of "racial profiling" because they arrested more Blacks than Whites. In the Manchester suburb of Oldham, with a population of nearly a quarter of a million—15 per cent of which consists of Asian immigrants brought in by the British government against the will of the British people since the Second World War—gangs of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Indians have been attacking Whites, while the media and the politicians have been trying to blame it on Whites, who supposedly provoked the Asians. Change the names of the cities, and the news stories in England about the Oldham race war or the race riot just three days ago in Leeds could have been written in this country about the riots in Seattle and Cincinnati.
I'll read to you excerpts from a couple of news reports which came from Oldham during the last two weeks. An Associated Press International story from Sunday, May 27, reported, and I quote:
"At the height of the clashes — which continued off and on for seven hours, into the early hours of Sunday — up to 500 youths fought pitched battles with police in full riot gear. The fighting left the main thoroughfare in the town's Glodwick district littered with broken bricks, shards of glass, and the hulks of several burned-out cars. "Paul Barrow, proprietor of a pub that was trashed in the fighting, said rioters burst in and began beating his patrons. 'The first of them got through the door and attacked the customers with whatever they could get their hands on -- bottles, stools, and glasses,' he said."Did you hear anything about that? I'm sure that you would have heard plenty and would still be hearing about it if 500 Whites had been the ones rioting and beating up Asians. And do you know how the rioting started? The same Associated Press International story says, and again I quote:
"The riot apparently was sparked when a gang of white youths attacked a home in a neighborhood where most residents are of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, or Indian origin, police said. Soon after, a group of about 100 youths from the neighborhood attacked a pub mainly patronized by whites."
Actually, gangs of Asians have been attacking Whites in Oldham for months. Most of these attacks have been ignored by the media, although an especially vicious incident earlier this year did make national headlines. In that incident Asians nearly killed a 76-year-old White man, Walter Chamberlain, when they smashed his face with bricks while screaming anti-White insults at him.
I'll read you another news report, this one from the May 30 issue of London's The Times. I quote:
"White families barricaded the windows of their homes with planks of wood last night as residents in the Oldham riot zone retreated behind ethnic lines. . . ."Earlier Jack Straw, the home secretary, tried to blame racial conflict in the town on intervention by the British National Party, but angry local white people told a different story. After Chief Superintendent Eric Hewitt said on television that all but a few of the 20 people arrested overnight were white, The Times sought the views of the town's shrinking white community.
"People described themselves as being under siege. Neighbors told of sending children to stay with families in Manchester and Ashton-under-Lyne so that they were not injured by bricks flying through windows or kept awake at night by police helicopters. . . .
"Mr. Straw told the Oldham Evening Chronicle yesterday: 'It is plain beyond doubt that relations between different sections of the community can only be poisoned by the intervention of extremists like the BNP. I utterly deplore their attempts to exploit the situation in the town.'"
Straw's comments about the BNP are nearly identical to those of the local media and government people in York, Pennsylvania , about me and the National Alliance when some of our material was distributed in York recently. I told you about that in my broadcast two weeks ago. If one isn't aware of the underlying forces involved, that sort of global unanimity might be surprising.
By the way, Jack Straw, the United Kingdom's minister of home affairs, who among other things is in charge of the country's police agencies, is a Jew. So was his predecessor as home secretary, Michael Howard. I have no idea how he managed to appropriate a good English name like "Howard," but while he was in office Howard banned me from the United Kingdom. He told me that if I ever attempted to enter that country again I would be arrested. The reason for my banning, he said, is that I might cause a breach of the public order. I told him that I had never in my life caused a breach of the public order anywhere. But the banning still stands. A Jew is able to tell me that I cannot visit the land of my ancestors, and his order is enforced by English policemen!
What do you think is the likelihood that the present Jewish home secretary, Jack Straw, will ban any of the Pakistanis or other Asians who smashed in Walter Chamberlain's head with bricks? Well of course, you know that there's no chance at all of that because the same unwritten rules apply in Britain that apply here. An attack on a White by a non-White is not regarded as a breach of the public order. It's only when a White defends himself against non-Whites that the media begin yapping about "hate crimes," and the government politicians spring into action.
And it's not just Britain and the United States. The same controlling force is at work in Germany, in Scandinavia, in France, in Canada, in Australia, and everywhere else in the White world. From Switzerland to Sweden it is against the law to question the Jews' claims about how many of them died during the Second World War in the so-called "Holocaust" or how they died. In Switzerland people are in prison now for saying, "I'm not convinced that six million Jews were killed in gas chambers by the Germans. I think that fewer than six million Jews died during the war, and most of them died from disease in the concentration camps, rather than from poison gas." Say that over here, and the media will denounce you hysterically as a "Holocaust denier." Say it in Canada or Australia or Switzerland or almost any other country in Europe, and the government will lock you up.
It is not just an amazing coincidence that we have this global similarity in conditions at this instant in time. What we can see is the same organized campaigns, the same well oiled legislative and social programs, the same hidden forces behind these campaigns in every country. As I said, there are differences in detail, but the same evil minds, the same schemers are at work globally. Take any program, any campaign — the current campaign by Jewish groups to have more "speech crime" legislation enacted in the United States, for example — and if you want to see where it is headed, look at any other White country where the same program has met a little less resistance and been able to gain more ground. Where the campaign has gone in one country is where it is headed in every country, because the same malevolent force is behind it.
I'll give you another indication that it's not soft, weepy liberal sentiment that's wrecking our society today, but rather a cold, hard, cunning, evil force behind the liberalism, using the liberalism to push a hidden agenda. It's not some soggy, mushy idea that everything which somehow qualifies as "human" is equal that is the driving force behind the ruin of our civilization, but rather it is a strongly cohesive group of people that consider themselves superior to everyone not in their ethnic/racial/religious group and only use egalitarianism as a wrecking tool against our society. My organization, the National Alliance, has for several years been publishing information on the racial differences in the incidence of HIV infection in the United States. One of our leaflets, which we have distributed widely on university campuses, points out that heterosexual Black males are 14 times as likely as heterosexual White males to be carriers of the AIDS-causing virus. We've also pointed out that while AIDS among Whites is largely a disease of homosexuals, among Blacks it's largely a heterosexual disease. Well, when we point out this startling difference between Black and White HIV infection rates for heterosexual males, with Blacks 14 times as likely to be infected, liberals don't want to believe it. They don't want to believe it because it is contrary to their primary belief in equality, in the essential sameness of Blacks and Whites.
But of course, the people behind the scenes—the schemers—are concerned with facts, with reality, not with nutty notions of equality. The sophomore college girls can squeal in disbelief when we present our information about racial disparities in the spread of AIDS and can denounce us as "haters," but the AIDS professionals, the experts, understand the truth of the matter. I have in front of me, on my desk at this moment, a poster — a large, colorful poster — published by the Florida Department of Health, intended for distribution in Black neighborhoods. It says, in large black and red letters: "1 in 50 Blacks in Florida has HIV." And it gives an 800 number for blacks to call for free HIV testing.
So why aren't the White college girls in Florida told that two per cent of Blacks are HIV infected? The government is telling the Blacks this but hoping that Whites won't find out. Why is that? Could it be that the people behind the scenes don't want White college girls to be wary of having sex with Blacks? Could it be that they want White college girls to become infected with HIV?
I believe that's exactly what they want. I believe that the people behind the scenes want the destruction of our people by any means, including racial mixing with Blacks. That's why the experts, the people who know the facts about AIDS, are afraid to speak up and tell the college girls that the National Alliance is correct. They are afraid of bucking the Jews behind the scenes. I have seen this fear manifested over and over again, and it is one more evidence of the powerful forces which simply use liberalism as a destructive tool against our people.
Thanks for being with me again today.