FEAR OF THE SMEAR
WILLIAM PIERCE
The enemies of America and of Europe—the enemies of our people everywhere—have two guiding principles, two imperatives. The first is to continue backing the racially destructive programs now in place while introducing newer and even more destructive programs through the media and through government legislation. The second imperative is to prevent or neutralize any effective opposition to their programs—that is, to make it impossible for our people to defend themselves.
For example, just two of the racially destructive programs they already have in place are, one, keeping our borders open to immigrants from the non-White areas of the world and, two, doing everything they can to encourage miscegenation. Their immigration program, aimed at flooding White areas with non-Whites, is backed primarily through the government. Their miscegenation program, aimed at increasing the degree of racial mongrelization, is backed primarily by their mass media—although they also use their influence among the Christian clergy and in the educational establishment to enlist the aid of the churches and the schools in pushing the acceptance of miscegenation among their White victims.
A majority of the people they intend to destroy are kept hypnotized by the mass media and offer no resistance. An independent-minded minority, however, are not happy about our enemies' plans and insist on speaking out and sometimes taking other measures against the programs intended to destroy them. These dissidents who speak against our enemies and their plans are described by the media as "haters" or "extremists." Or, if talk turns to action, the dissidents are denounced as "terrorists." In most cases fear of these labels, fear of being called a "hater," is sufficient to keep the dissidents quiet. After all, most independent-minded people, just like the lemmings, are social creatures. They desire the goodwill of their neighbors, They don't want to be hated or reviled or even feared. They have families and jobs. They don't want their colleagues or coworkers to consider them odd or dangerous. They don't want their friends and acquaintances among the lemmings to shun them.
The media bosses, who are foremost among the enemies of our people, thus have a very powerful weapon in their ability to label arbitrarily as "haters" any dissidents bold enough to speak out against them or their policies or even against the consequences of their policies. Thus, when Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker—or perhaps I should say, former Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker—spoke out a few weeks ago, he immediately was labeled a "hater" by virtually all of the mass media. His comments about what a multicultural pigsty New York City has become were denounced as "hate speech." The unanimity of the media reaction to Rocker's rather mild comments gives us a clue that these ritual denunciations are a matter of deliberate policy rather than merely spontaneous and individual expressions of disagreement by the media bosses.
In other words, when I or some other dissident says something the media bosses find disagreeable, the disagreeable comment is unanimously labeled "hate speech." It's never a matter of some of them agreeing with it and some disagreeing; they all denounce it as "hate." I don't have to screw up my face and scream, "I hate you," in order to be denounced as a "hater." Almost anything I say is described in all of the mass media as "hate speech," simply because it is not Politically Correct, simply because it deviates from the party line. And believe me, there is a party line.
For example, my organization, the National Alliance, distributes a little index-card size sticker which has printed on it the words "Earth's most endangered species—the White race—help preserve it." That's all, except for our name and address. Again, the sticker simply says "Earth's most endangered species—the White race—help preserve it." And yet, every time the media comment on this sticker they use the word "hate." They call it a "hate sticker," "hate propaganda," and the like. They never comment on it without using the word "hate." My people distribute some of these stickers in an area, and a hysterical headline appears in the local newspaper "Residents alarmed by hate literature distributed in city," or something similar.
Now, don't tell me that this is an independent and spontaneous reaction by the media bosses each time it happens. We've distributed several million of these stickers over the past decade, and I've seen this reaction hundreds of times, all over the country, and it happens according to plan. It is a deliberate stratagem, intended to intimidate people who might otherwise respond positively to the message on our sticker. And the fact that our enemies use their "hate" smear against this particular message confirms what I mentioned a moment ago about their genocidal aims. Their first imperative really is to destroy our race. They don't push for open borders because they love Black and Brown and Yellow immigrants. They do it because they want to destroy us. They don't try to persuade teenaged White girls that it's fashionable to date Blacks because they find the color combination aesthetically attractive. They do it because they want to destroy our people, our race, our civilization, our culture.
Now, if you think that I'm exaggerating about the reaction of the controlled media to my inoffensive, little stickers, just check it out for yourself. The National Alliance will send you a package of 100 of these stickers, postpaid, for six dollars. Get a package of them, stick them up around your community, and then take one to your local newspaper, or send it by mail to your local television station, say that you have seen them stuck on walls and bulletin boards and power poles, and ask what the sticker is about. If you speak with an individual reporter, he or she may not have any-thing specific to tell you, but if your question elicits a public response from the newspaper or the television station, it invariably will refer to the sticker using the word "hate"—invariably it's a "hate sticker" with a "hate message."
Really, there's nothing that any reasonable person could consider "hateful" about asking for help in preserving our race. The aim of those who label this message as "hate" is to smear, to intimidate; it is intended to silence dissenters, to stifle dissent. And it is an unfortunate fact that fear of the smear usually is effective. It made John Rocker grovel and apologize. It is fear of the smear that silences many people who otherwise would respond positively or sympathetically to the message on my stickers. They see one of the stickers, and they think, "Hey, that's right! The immigration situation is out of control. My race really is endangered. I would like to help preserve it. I'd like to contact the National Alliance and see what I can do to help. But if I do, some Politically Correct person may report me to the media, and they will denounce me as a 'hater.' So I'd better just keep my mouth shut and pretend that I never saw this sticker." That's what happens all too often. People are intimidated by fear of the smear, and the media bosses planned it that way.
Someone sent me a copy of a television program which appeared last week on the Discovery Channel. It was a program about militias—and in particular about a militia group in Missouri, the 51st Missouri Militia or something similar. Many of the militia members were interviewed, and many of them clearly share some of our concerns and opinions. The militia members all are concerned about the growing infringement of the government on citizens' rights. They all believe that it is right and proper for a free man to keep and bear arms. They all despise the Clinton government. They all deplore the murder of Randy Weaver's family on Ruby Ridge by the secret police in 1992, and they are appalled by Janet Reno's holocaust of innocent women and children in the Branch Davidian church at Waco in 1993.
But they are intimidated by the media's power of the smear. They are scared to death of being called "haters." In the program I saw they repeatedly stressed that they are neither racists nor anti-Semites. The group was all White—at least, every one of the dozens of members shown in the program was White—but they apologized for this; they apologized and said that they were trying very hard to get Blacks interested in joining; they just hadn't had any success yet—disgusting, really. And they just love Jews. They claim to see no connection at all between Jews and the government's efforts to infringe their Second Amendment rights. They parrot the standard lie of a Second Amendment Judas organization, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, to the effect that the first thing Hitler did when he became chancellor of Germany in 1933 was round up all the guns. It's Nazis who are behind the gun-control movement, they claim, not Jews. And one of the leaders of the Missouri militia group stressed that membership in their militia is open to all religions and races. They welcome everyone—except racists and anti-Semites. They will not tolerate Nazis in their militia. It is painfully clear that they hope their membership policies will curry favor with the media.They are afraid of the smear and believe that they can avoid being smeared by being anti-racist and pro-Jewish.
Fortunately, however, not everyone is so intimidated that he averts his eyes from one of our "endangered species" stickers and hurries away in fear, lest someone sees him reading it. We have raised a rather unmanly crop of men in this generation—a crop appallingly deficient in civic courage—but there are still a few real men left—and a few proud White women too. The media bosses—the people who want to destroy us—are concerned about this. And they have a plan for silencing those who are not intimidated by the fear of the smear. What they intend to do is outlaw us—or at least, make it illegal for us to say what we think. They are working hard on this on several fronts.
The concept of "hate crime" was introduced to the American public two decades ago by America's most powerful Jewish pressure group, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith—the ADL. As is usually the case with Jewish plans, it was based on indirection and deceit.
The first move was to persuade the politicians to enact legislation which would make any sort of vandalism directed at a church or other building used for religious purposes a new sort of crime, subject to more severe penalties than ordinary vandalism. A few people asked why we needed such a law, since vandalism already was against the law. Why did we need a special law defining vandalism against a church or synagogue as a more serious crime than ordinary vandalism? Well, the politicians were not about to quibble over such matters and risk being seen as anti-religious, so the ADL's proposal quickly became law in several states. That was the first "hate crime" law.
The second move was a "model ethnic terrorism bill," which the ADL peddled to various state legislatures where they had special clout. It would define as a new criminal offense an act of terrorism directed toward any member of a religious or ethnic minority. An act of terrorism could be a physical assault, or it could be the mere scrawling of graffiti which might be intimidating to members of a religious or ethnic minority. The New Jersey state legislature was happy to enact the ADL's model ethnic terrorism bill into law. Again some asked why the law was needed, but they were drowned out by the media, which were solidly in favor of such a law, and by the politicians, who were eager to comply.
The ADL now had its foot in the door, and with the aid of an unrelenting propaganda campaign by collaborators in the media began conditioning the public to accept the notion of "hate crime" as an especially despicable type of crime requiring new legislation and especially severe punishment. The novel thing about this notion is that a criminal prosecution can be based on the thoughts of the criminal rather than on his actions. This notion is abhorrent to Western ideas about justice, but in an increasingly multicultural America Western ideas and traditions carry less weight than in the past, and the notion of "hate crime" gained increasing public acceptance throughout the 1990s.
"Hate crime" legislation already has been enacted in many states. So today, if I punch another White man in the nose, it's a simple case of assault, a misdemeanor. But if I punch a Jew or a Black or a homosexual in the nose, it may be a much more serious matter. It may be a felony, and I may be punished much more severely than I would be for punching a White man. It all depends upon what I was thinking before and at the time I threw the punch. And to determine what I was thinking the government may inquire into my associations, my political and religious affiliations, my reading habits, even the type of music I listen to. Prosecutors may subpoena my friends and grill them about my opinions on race, Jews, or homosexuality.
Other Jewish organizations have gotten on the "hate crime" bandwagon with the ADL, and they continue to push for even more "hate crime" legislation. We merely have to extrapolate the trend of the last decade to predict with confidence that the Jews will have state "hate crime" laws in every state as well as at the Federal level before the end of this decade. One expects the couch potatoes and lemmings to go along with whatever their television screens tell them. One expects this soulless, spineless crowd to swallow without protest whatever the Jews dish out. What is depressing to me is that the lawyers and judges and legislators—the people who should have opposed this perversion of our judicial system, this degradation of our legal system, with every bit of strength and influence they have—the lawyers have sat on their hands and kept their mouths shut from fear of the smear.
Well, that is far from the worst of it. The next phase—and they're already well into this phase—is to criminalize "hate speech." It's not such a big step from the current "hate crime" laws, which base a man's punishment for an offense on the type of books he reads, to "hate speech" laws, which punish a man for what he says or writes. Today the government can upgrade a misdemeanor offense to a felony if a man expresses opinions which the ADL deems "hateful." Tomorrow, we will jail a man simply for expressing those opinions. For the past few years they've been teaching law commentators to prattle about how free speech never was an absolute thing anyway, because we never have had the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, and so we shouldn't object to a few more little restrictions.
They're now telling us America is out of step with all of the more progressive countries of the world. Politically Incorrect speech already is criminalized in Canada, in the United Kingdom, in the Netherlands, in France, in Germany, and in most other White countries. The United States is lagging behind. We need to modernize our legal system in order to catch up with the rest of the world. And so on.
And it's not just the Jews pushing this effort to scrap the First Amendment. They have enlisted their usual assortment of allies—not just Gentile politicians on the make, but also the same sort of riff-raff and resentful haters who make up the Clinton coalition, people who have a grudge against White, heterosexual society, people who are smoldering inside with resentment against real or imagined slights they have suffered at the hands of White men who were free to speak their minds. The radical feminists are right up there with the Jews at the forefront of this effort to muzzle those who don't agree with them.
More generally, there are all too many White men as well as women today who will agree with the media bosses that we really need to give up our right to offensive speech in order to ensure tranquility in this increasingly multicultural society, where so many people are so easily offended. These feminine thinkers will assure you that they're fully in favor of free speech; they're 100 per cent supporters of the First Amendment. The only kind of speech they want to criminalize is offensive speech. Now, that's not much worse than forbidding people to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, is it? And we'll have so much more tranquility, we'll be able to consume in so much more comfort and safety, if people are not permitted to offend each other. It's worth it, isn't it?
And it will be so easy, because we already have experts who will tell us just what speech is offensive, just what sort of speech people need to be locked up for. Those nice Jewish boys at the Anti-Defamation League will do it for us, with the help of those nice Jewish boys at the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
This whole business of preventing people from saying or writing "hateful" things has gained much urgency with the growth of the Internet. It used to be that people who wanted to say things the ADL considered offensive were limited to flyers and pamphlets, because other media were pretty well sewed up by people on the ADL's side—people in the same tribe. But the Internet has changed all of that, at least for the moment. Now a person doesn't have to be a billionaire, he doesn't have to have enough money to buy his own TV network, in order to be able to tell the whole world what's on his mind. The folks in the ADL consider that a very dangerous situation, and they're working overtime to protect us from it. They've already developed an ADL "hate filter," which they're busy persuading public schools and libraries to install on all of their computers. This "hate filter" prevents students or library users from reading anything at a site the ADL experts deem to be offensive.
We're out of time today. I'll talk more about this later, because it's an extremely important subject. Much more is at stake than the right of dissidents such as me to dissent. Our entire freedom is at stake and beyond that our racial survival. The Jewish boys at the ADL understand that, which is why they have a campaign against the Second Amendment in tandem with their campaign against the First Amendment. We'd better understand it too.