Fear of the Smear

Dr. William Pierce

.

.



To: National Alliance (national@natvan.com)
American Dissident Voices Broadcast of March 4, 2000

Fear of the Smear
by Dr. 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 entirely 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," as "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 anything 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."

I mean, 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 nevertheless 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
really 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 the trendier 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 really
shouldn't object to a few more little restrictions.

Now they're playing the global angle: America, they're telling us, 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 you know, 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, the notion of not permitting people to write or say
anything which may offend someone appeals to the feminine mentality,
regardless of sex. Which is to say, 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. Isn't that nice of them?

Listen, 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 nice 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.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADVlist.

To subscribe to ADVlist, send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" as the subject of the message to: ADVlist@NatVan.com

For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or
http://www.natall.com.

==> The National Alliance has a strict anti-spamming policy.  This 
information is intended for interested parties only and is not to be 
indiscriminately distributed via mass e-mailing or newsgroup posting.

To contact us, write to:
     National Vanguard Books
     Attention:  ADVlist
     P.O. Box 330
     Hillsboro, WV  24946

or e-mail: national@NatVan.com please tell us if we can post your
comments and if so whether you want your name or e-mail address
given.

-->  TO BE REMOVED from ADVlist, send an e-mail message to:  
ADVlist@NatVan.com  which has "unsubscribe" as the subject of the
message.

(c) 2000 National Vanguard Books

.

.

Back to Patrick Henry On-Line
Back to Modern Militiaman, Issue #13 --Y2K
Back to The Thought 4 The Day
Back to Stuff I Wish I Wrote -- But Didn't
.