Jo Cox loved her some hajis. The issue is that a lot of people don’t like being flooded with hajis. And some people are in fact really mad about it.

The SPLC has traveled to London on a special mission to blame White people for everything.

Washington Post:

The man detained by police in connection with the killing of a rising star of British politics had longstanding ties to a U.S.-based neo-Nazi organization and, in the past, had ordered a how-to guide for assembling a homemade gun, according to a watchdog group that tracks extremist behavior.

The revelation came as police on Friday continued to investigate the motive behind the killing of the British lawmaker, Jo Cox, who was stabbed and shot midday Thursday in an attack that stunned the nation and led to a suspension of the European Union referendum campaign just a week before the vote. Cox had been a strong advocate of an inclusive and multicultural Britain amid a wave of hostility toward immigrants that is helping to fuel the anti-E.U. campaign.

Cox’s suspected killer was not named by police but was identified in the British media as 52-year-old Tommy Mair, a local resident whom neighbors described as quiet and devoted to his mother. Family members said that Mair had never expressed strong political views, but that he had an obsessive personality. He was arrested shortly after the attack.

According to documents obtained by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the U.S.-based organization that tracks extremist groups, Mair was a long-time supporter of the National Alliance, a once-prominent white supremacist group. In 1999, Mair bought a manual from the organization that included instructions on how to build a pistol, the center said.

Cox was shot by a weapon that witnesses described as either homemade or antique.

In all, Mair sent $620 to the group’s publishing imprint for titles including “Incendiaries,” “Chemistry of Powder and Explosives” and “Improvised Munitions Handbook,” the law center said.

The Daily Telegraph also reported that Mair had subscribed to a South African magazine published by the White Rhino Club, a pro-apartheid group.

Officials have not commented on a possible motive for the killing. But British media organizations including the Guardian, the BBC and Sky News quoted witnesses as saying that the assailant shouted “Britain first!” during and after the attack.

Britain First is the name of a far-right group that stages provocative anti-Muslim demonstrations. After Thursday’s attack, the organization posted a statement on its website denying involvement and saying it “would never encourage behavior of this sort.”

So, why does the SPLC know this?

Well, they acquired a bunch of people’s personal records by means that were almost certainly not legal. But in the 90s, Morris Dees was still running things, and the group was basically a private intelligence agency.

Like ISIS in Archer. Only humorless. And all Jews.

They actually send spies into Elohim City way back when. But that was before Peak Jew set in.

Anyway, now all they do is harass people on the internet.

They are probably going to blame me for this as well, like they blamed me for tactical bowlcut. Or maybe they’ll blame someone else, like TRS. They’re super-mad at them for the echo thing presently, so it’s likely they’ll blame them.

Why we have parentheses around (((SPLC))) https://t.co/9AO5Jarne2

— (((SPLC))) (@splcenter) June 4, 2016

Whatever the case, they’re not going to let the sole blame rest on William Pierce, because he’s dead. They use each and every one of these incidents to badmouth existing enemies, and I guarantee the staff is working overtime to find whatever tenuous links they can to existing groups.

But don’t worry about it. It doesn’t mean anything.

Regarding Violent Outbursts

You can’t expect things like Charleston or the MP murder to never happen. It is really incredible that it doesn’t happen more. Really shows the level of composure White people generally have.

But if you are committing a genocide against a people, in the way the liberal-Jew establishment is committing a genocide against us by replacing us in our own countries with brown people from anywhere, eventually these sorts of things are going to happen.

People within our own movement exaggerate the supposed negative effect these things have on our movement. The idea that people are going to see this and say “oh wow, better support the EU because some guy who supports Brexit stabbed a woman” doesn’t follow logically.

I’m not even sure if it is the logic of the SPLC that people think like that. It is more likely that they just want to associate White activism with violence for their own legal agenda to try and shut us down.

Excellent new video by Omniphi, based on one of Dr. William Pierce’s most important broadcasts. Watch it, and then spread it around!

A 1996 interview with Dr. William Luther Pierce by Kevin Alfred Strom

KAS: There is a continuing public debate about the role of women in our society and the related subjects of sexism and feminism. One example was the hullabaloo that occurred during the confirmation of Clarence Thomas’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Feminists and their claque in the media charged that this confirmation was an affirmation of the “sexism” rampant in the U.S. political establishment. The cure for this alleged problem is to get more women into positions of political power, according to many people in the media.

Another example was the uproar about a drunken party several years ago in Las Vegas for Navy fliers at which several women who showed up were manhandled — in particular, a female flier who later complained to the media about her treatment. The news coverage of the Las Vegas party brought demands from media spokesmen and politicians for rooting out the “sexism” in the armed forces and giving women equal roles in everything from infantry combat to flying fighter jets. Do you see any real or lasting significance in this debate?

WLP: Oh, it’s certainly a significant debate. The significance is perhaps not exactly what the media spokesmen would have us believe it is, but there is a significance there nevertheless. Getting at the real significance, pulling it out into the light where everyone can see it and examine it, requires a little care, though. There’s a lot of misdirection, a lot of deliberate deception in the debate.

Look at the first example you just mentioned. The controlled media would have us believe that the approval of Clarence Thomas by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the face of Anita Hill’s complaints about him demonstrates a callous insensitivity to women’s welfare. But what were Anita Hill’s complaints? They were that when Thomas had been her boss in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission he had asked her several times for a date and that on one occasion he had begun describing to her a pornographic film he had seen the evening before. She never alleged that he had demanded sexual favors from her, threatened her, or put his hands on her. Her complaint was that he had shown a normal, healthy interest in her as a woman. He had asked her for a date.

Talking to her about a pornographic film may have indicated a certain lack of refinement on his part — at least that would be the case if the two of them were members of a traditional White society, in which gentlemen didn’t talk about pornographic films in the presence of ladies, at least not in the office — but what the hell, the folks who were raising such a fuss about Thomas’s behavior are, like both Clarence and Anita themselves, all members of the brave, New World Order society, which is neither White nor traditional. It’s a so-called “multicultural” society in which there are no gentlemen and there are no ladies; there are just male and female people, and the female people are no different from the male people: they are just as bawdy, just as vulgar, just as aggressive.

KAS: So you believe that the whole thing was just a tempest in a teapot, that it really wasn’t significant?

WLP: A tempest in a teapot, yes, but still very significant. One aspect of the Clarence and Anita circus was that it was simply seized on and used by people with a certain political agenda, and so of course their tendency was to make as much ado as they could about it. But another aspect is that many of the feminists who were screeching against Thomas and against the Senate’s approval of him really were indignant that the man had asked Anita Hill for a date. They really were outraged that he had an interest in her as a woman and did not simply treat her as another lawyer in his office. Men are not supposed to notice women as women, but only as people, and radical feminists really do become angry if one drops this unisex pretense even for a minute. Open a door for one of them and you’ll get a nasty glare; call one of them “my dear” or refer to her as a “girl” and you’ll be slapped with a civil rights lawsuit.

The fuss about this Tailhook Association party in Las Vegas reveals the same sort of nuttiness. I mean, what do you expect when a bunch of Navy fliers throw a wild, drunken orgy? They had held their party in Las Vegas several years in a row, and the party had gained a bit of a reputation. It was notorious. Everybody in Naval aviation knew all about it. The Navy women who went to the party knew what to expect. They joined the orgy. Any woman who didn’t want to be pawed by drunken fliers and have her panties pulled off stayed away. Certainly, if these Navy fliers had shanghaied some unsuspecting woman off the street and forced her to submit to indignities, I would be the first to call for their being put up against a wall. I’ll go further and say that I really don’t approve of drunkenness under any circumstances — although I believe it’s only realistic to accept drinking as a fact of military life. But I cannot work up much sympathy for a woman who, knowing what the Tailhook parties are like, decides that she will pretend that she really isn’t a woman but rather is a genderless Navy flier and so can go to the Tailhook party without worrying about her panties.

KAS: That’s really irrational isn’t it? It doesn’t make sense to ignore human nature like that.

WLP: Irrationality seems to be the rule rather than the exception in public affairs these days. Feminism, of course, is just another exercise in reality denial, which has become such a common pastime. There are too many people out there who seem to believe that if we pretend that men and women are the same, they really will be; that if we pretend there are no differences between Blacks and Whites except skin color, the differences will disappear; that if we pretend that homosexuality is a normal, healthy condition, it will be.

Feminism is one of the most destructive aberrations being pushed by the media today, because it has an immediate effect on nearly all of us. There are many sectors of the economy, for example, in which racial-quota hiring and promotion – so-called “affirmative action” — isn’t a real problem, and so White people who work in those sectors remain relatively unaffected by the racial aspects of America’s breakdown, but feminism is becoming pervasive; there are few relationships between men and women, especially between younger men and women, which will not suffer from the effects of feminism in the near future.

KAS: You just referred to feminism as “a destructive aberration” and spoke of the breakdown of America. Are the two things connected?

WLP: When homosexuals come out of the closet and women go into politics, empires crumble. Or, to say that a way which more accurately reflects the cause-effect relationship, when empires begin to crumble, then the queers come out of the closet and women go into politics. Which is to say, that in a strong, healthy society, feminism isn’t a problem. But when a society begins to decay — when the men lose their self-confidence — then feminism raises its head and accelerates the process of decay.

KAS: Before we go further, exactly what do you mean by feminism? Can you define the word for us?

WLP: Feminism is a system of ideas with several distinguishing characteristics. First, it’s a system in which gender is regarded as the primary identifying characteristic, more important even than race. Second, and paradoxically, it’s a system in which men and women are regarded as innately identical in all intellectual and psychical traits, and in all physical traits except those most obviously dependent on the configuration of the genitalia. Third, it’s a system in which filling a traditionally male role in society is valued above being a wife and mother, a system in which the traditional female roles are denigrated. Finally, it’s a system in which men and women are regarded as mutually hostile classes, with men traditionally in the role of oppressors of women; and in which it is regarded as every woman’s primary duty to support the interests of her fellow women of all races against the male oppressors.

I should add that not every woman who describes herself as a feminist would go along 100% with that definition. Real feminism is not just an intellectual thing; it’s a sickness, with deep emotional roots. Some women just want to be trendy, but are otherwise normal. They just want to be fashionable, and feminism is held up by the media as fashionable these days. It’s Politically Correct.

And while we’re at it, we should note that there is an analogous malady, usually called male chauvinism, which expresses itself in a range of attitudes toward women ranging from patronizing contempt to outright hatred. Feminists often attribute the growth of feminism to a reaction against male chauvinism. Actually the latter, which never afflicted more than a minority of White men, has been more an excuse for the promoters of feminism than a cause of that disorder.

KAS: OK. So that’s what feminism is. Now, in what way is it destructive? How is it connected to America’s decline?

WLP: Feminism is destructive at several different levels. At the racial level it is destructive because it divides the race against itself, robbing us of racial solidarity and weakening us in the struggle for racial survival; and because it reduces the White birthrate, especially among educated women. It also undermines the family by taking women out of the home and leaving the raising of children to television and day-care centers.

At a personal or social level feminism does its damage by eroding the traditional relationship between men and women. That traditional relationship is not based on any assumption of equality or sameness. It’s not a symmetrical relationship, but rather a complementary one. It’s based on a sexual division of labor, with fundamentally different roles for men and women: men are the providers and the protectors, and women are the nurturers. Men bring home the bacon, and they guard the den; women nourish the children and tend the hearth.

Many people today sneer at this traditional relationship. They think that in the New World Order there is no need to protect the den or the condo or whatever, because these days we’re all very civilized, and that all one needs to do to bring home the bacon is hop in the car and drive to the nearest shopping mall, and, of course, a woman can do that just as well as a man. Therefore, because the times have changed, roles should change. There’s no longer any reason for a division of labor; now we can all be the same, claim the apologists for feminism.

Now, I have a couple of problems with that line of reasoning. First, I’m not as eager to toss million-year-old traditions in the ash-can as the New World Order enthusiasts are, because I’m not as confident in the ability of the government to provide protection for all of us as they are, nor am I as confident that there’ll always be bacon at the neighborhood shopping mall and we won’t have to revert to earlier ways of getting it. Actually, I’m an optimist by nature, but I’m not so optimistic as to believe that I’ll never be called on to use my strength or my fighting instincts to protect my family. In fact, every time I watch the evening news on television, I become more convinced that there’s a very good chance we’re going to end up having to fight for our bacon within the next few years.

In the second place, Mother Nature made a very big investment in her way of doing things over the past few million years of primate evolution. It’s not simply a matter of our deciding that we don’t like Mother Nature’s plan because it’s not fashionable any longer, and so we’ll change it. We are what we are. That is, we are what millions of years of evolution have made us. A man is a man in every cell of his body and his brain, not just in his genitalia, and a woman is a woman to the same degree. We were very thoroughly and precisely adapted to our different roles. We can’t change reality by passing a civil rights law. When we deceive ourselves into thinking that we can, there’s hell to pay. Which is to say that we end up with a lot of very confused, disappointed, and unhappy men and women. We also end up with a lot of very angry men and women, which accounts for the feminists and the male chauvinists.

It’s true, of course, that some women might be perfectly happy as corporate raiders or professional knife fighters, just as some men have willingly adapted to the New World Order by becoming less aggressive and more “sensitive.” But it doesn’t work that way for normal men and women. What the normal man really wants and needs is not just a business partner and roommate of the opposite sex, but a real woman whom he can protect and provide for. And what a normal woman really wants and needs with every fiber of her being, regardless of how much feminist propaganda she’s soaked up, is a real man, who can love and protect her and provide for her and their children. If she’s watched too much television and has let herself be persuaded that what she wants instead of a strong, masculine man is a sensitive wimp who’ll let her wear the trousers in the family half the time, she’s headed for a severe collision with the reality of her own nature. She’ll end up making herself very neurotic, driving a few men into male chauvinism, and becoming a social liability. Our society just can’t afford any more of that sort of foolishness. If feminism were only making individuals unhappy, I wouldn’t be very concerned about it. I’ve always believed that people were entitled to make themselves as unhappy as they wanted to. But unfortunately, it’s wrecking our society and weakening our race, and we must put a stop to it soon.

KAS: How do you propose to do that? The feminist movement really seems to be snowballing, and as you noted the mass media are all for it. It would seem pretty difficult to stop. Anyone who opposes the feminists is perceived as a male chauvinist who wants to take away women’s rights and confine them to the kitchen and the bedroom.

WLP: Well, of course, I’m not in favor of taking anything away from women. I’d like to give women the option of being women again in the traditional way, in Nature’s way, the option of staying home and taking care of their children and making a home for their husbands. It wasn’t the feminists, of course, who changed our economy so that it’s no longer possible for many families to survive unless both the man and the woman are employed outside the home. A society which forces women out of the home and into offices and factories is not a healthy society. I’d like for our society to be changed so that it’s possible once again for mothers to stay at home with their children, the way they did back before the Second World War, back before the New World Order boys got their hands on our economy and launched their plan to bring the living standard of the average American wage earner down to the average Mexican level. I think many will want to stay home when it’s possible to do so. And I am sure that if we provide the right role models for women, most will want to. If we regain control of our television industry, of our news and entertainment and advertising industries, we can hold up quite a different model of the ideal woman from the one being held up today.

Most women, just like most men, want to be fashionable. They try to do and be what’s expected of them. We just need to move that model back closer to what Mother Nature had in mind. Then there’s no need to take away anybody’s rights. A few female lawyers with butch haircuts can easily be tolerated in a healthy society — a few flagpole sitters, a few glass eaters, a few of all sorts of people — so long as their particular brand of oddness doesn’t begin undermining the health of the whole society.

KAS: But what about the people who control the media now — what about the legislators — who are on the feminist bandwagon? They are very powerful. What will you do about them?

WLP: We’ll do whatever is necessary. Now we’re helping people understand feminism and the other ills which are afflicting our society. Understanding really must come first. After understanding comes organization. And then, as I said, whatever is necessary.

And I should add this: Whatever flies in the face of reality is inherently self-destructive. But we cannot wait for this disease to burn itself out. The toll will be too great. We have to stand up against it and oppose it now. We have to change people’s attitudes about feminism being fashionable. We have to make the politicians who’ve jumped on the feminist bandwagon understand that there will be a heavy price to pay, some day, for their irresponsibility.

KAS: Do you really think that you can change the behavior of the politicians?

WLP: Perhaps not, but we must at least give them a chance to change. Unfortunately in the case of the politicians most of them have many crimes besides an advocacy of feminism to answer for, and they know that they can only be hanged once.

Dr. William Pierce explains the way these filthy Jews operate.  The Talmud, as a representation of their racial soul, is proof of the vicious, evil and parasitical nature of this godless race.

This is great material to share with those just waking up to the nature of the Jew problem, as it is clear and concise and cannot really be argued with.  The late Dr. Pierce was brilliant and putting together presentations to which there was no other response but “yeah.”

We are currently running Dr. Pierce’s classic broadcast on the Radio Stormer Network.

The Resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 10, equating Zionism and racism, has provoked a torrent of response in the news media. Much of this response has been deliberately deceptive, and there consequently exists a state of confusion in the average citizen’s mind as to just what Zionism is and what its relationship is, if any, with racism.

The Jewish response to the UN action, has been to deny that Zionism is racism and to charge to the contrary that anti-Zionism is merely a thinly veiled anti-Semitism. Jews maintain that Zionism, with its call for an exclusive Jewish homeland comprising Palestine and portions of other Arab countries, cannot be separated from Judaism and the Jewish people. In the words of Chaim Herzog, Israeli ambassador to the UN:

“Zionism… is the modern expression of the ancient Jewish heritage. The Zionist ideal, as set out in the Bible, has been and is an integral part of the Jewish religion.”

The Jews are essentially correct in asserting that one cannot be against Zionism without also being against Jews. Even though many Jews do not participate actively in any of the numerous Zionist political organizations, it is an undeniable fact that Jews, non-religious as well as religious ones, are nearly unanimous in their support for the government of Israel and for the political goals of Zionism.

Those who oppose Zionism or who are totally indifferent to it are an utterly insignificant minority. As Israel’s leaders are fond of boasting, “The Six Day War (of June 1967, in which the Jews seized Egypt’s Sinai, Jordan’s West Bank, and Syria’s Golan in a surprise assault on their Arab neighbors) Zionized world Jewry.”

Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, the organ of the powerful American Jewish Committee, says essentially the same thing: “It has become clearer and clearer that something has happened to the Jews of America: they have all been converted to Zionism.”

But is Zionism equivalent to racism? Jews are the very image of wounded innocence as they hotly deny this. They correctly point out that Jews have been the instigators, the financiers, the propagandists, the generals, and, to a great extent, the soldiers in the war against racism, both in the United States and in other parts of the world.

As just one example, the most important organization in America seeking to bring about racial mixing between Blacks and Whites, the National Association far the Advancement of Colored People, has been an almost exclusively Jewish enterprise from its founding by Jews in 1910 until the death of its last Jewish president, Kivie Kaplan, last year. A Jewish lawyer, Jack Greenberg, still heads the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which has instigated most of the moves toward court-enforced racial mixing in the last 25 years, including the original school-integration decision by the Supreme Court in 1954, from which all of today’s forced-busing orders have stemmed.

And the record of votes by Jewish legislators in the Congress and statements by Jewish spokesmen in the media is clear: they overwhelmingly favor all moves, including the racial busing of school children, which bring about increased racial mixing.

In other countries it is the same story. In South Africa, for example, the crumbling of the government’s policy of apartheid and the decision to abandon Rhodesia are the direct result of Jewish pressure. Harry Oppenheimer, the Jewish multibillionaire who controls the De Beers diamond mines, practically all of South Africa’s gold mines, her uranium industry, and a dozen other South African industries as well, has used his enormous wealth to buy control of many of the English-language news media in South Africa and has made substantial inroads into Afrikaans newspapers and magazines. He uses his media control to propagandize for Black-White “equality” and eventual Black rule for South Africa while simultaneously applying more direct pressures to government officials. He is supported in his efforts by South Africa’s very substantial Jewish community.

So, if nearly all Jews are Zionists and if nearly all Jews believe in racial mixing, how can Zionism be a form of racism?

In trying to answer this question, it is helpful to consider what a few prominent Zionists have had to say about Zionism. Moses Hess (1812-1875) is regarded as the real father of the modern, political form of Zionism. In his book Rome and Jerusalem, published in 1862, he wrote:

“We Jews shall always remain strangers among the goyim (Gentiles)… It is a fact that the Jewish religion is above all Jewish nationalism… Each and every Jew, whether he wishes it or not, is automatically, by virtue of his birth, bound in solidarity with his entire nation… One must be a Jew first and a human being second.”

Hess was more a Jewish nationalist than a Jewish racist — although he clearly did consider Jewishness to be a matter of birth rather than conviction. Other Zionists were much more explicit on this point. Louis Brandeis, a former U.S. Supreme Court justice and a leading Zionist, stated it succinctly: “Jews are a distinct nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station, or his shade of belief, is necessarily a member.”

The Zionist historian Simon Dubnow wrote in his book, The Foundation of National Judaism (published in 1906):

Assimilation is common treason against the banner and ideals of the Jewish people… But one can never ‘become’ a member of a natural group, such as a family, a tribe, or a nation. One may attain the rights or privileges of citizenship with a foreign nation, but cannot appropriate for himself its nationality too. To be sure, the emancipated Jew in France calls himself a Frenchman of Jewish faith. Would that mean, however, that he became a part of the French nation, confessing to the Jewish faith? Not at all. Because in order to be a member of the French nation one must be a Frenchman by birth, one must be able to trace his genealogy back to the Gauls, or to another race in close kinship with them, and finally one must also possess those characteristics which are the result of the historic evolution of the French nation. A Jew, on the other hand, even if he happened to be born in France and still lives there, in spite of all these, he remains a member of the Jewish nation, and whether he likes it or not, whether he is aware or unaware of it, he bears the seal of the historic evolution of the Jewish nation.

All three Zionists quoted above may be correctly regarded as racists, in that they reject the prevailing notion of the day that only the individual has any real significance and that it is wicked even to take into consideration the biological and cultural connections of the individual to a “natural group” (to use Dubnow ‘s term) of which he is a member.

It can be argued, nevertheless, that Jewish racism is at least a little different from the racism of most other peoples, in that it does place relatively less emphasis on purely biological connections and relatively more on other tribal connections: a shared culture, history, and attitude toward the non-Jewish world.

But this is to be expected in a people who exhibit as much biological diversity as the Jews do. They have absorbed physical traits from many of the other races among whom they have lived, until today, although most Jews still have many racial factors in common, they cannot be easily classified as a distinct race — and certainly not as a homogeneous race.

That which defines the Jews is only partly racial. They are also a partly national, partly religious, partly historical, partly cultural entity.

Indeed, because Jews are much more uniform psychically than physically, it is very difficult to decide whether they are more nearly a racial entity or a cultural entity. But that may be an irrelevant point. The fact is that Jews, now and always, have regarded themselves as a distinct, separate, and very special category of people — the “chosen people,” the “people of God,” and, as such, superior to all other peoples of the earth.

This idea that all Jews, whatever the country of their birth, are members of a single tribe, separate from and superior to all others, is the central theme of Zionism and of Judaism. Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, touched on it when he said:

“Diaspora Jewry (all Jews outside Palestine) has to overcome the conscious or subconscious fear of so-called double loyalty. It has to be convinced that it is fully justified in tying up its destiny with Israel’s. It has to have the courage to reject the idea that Jewish communities owe loyalty only to the states where they live.”

Dr. Goldmann expressed himself more clearly in addressing the Jews of Germany, before World War II, attempting to persuade them to emigrate to Palestine:

Judaism can have nothing in common with Germanism, if we go by the standards of race, history, and culture, and the Germans have the right to prevent the Jews from intruding into the affairs or their volk… The same demand I raise for the Jewish volk, as against the German… The Jews are divided into two categories, those who admit that they belong to a race distinguished by a history thousands of years old, and those who don’t. The latter are open to the charge of dishonesty.

If the racism expressed by Goldmann in the above statements were all there is to it, it would be hard to find fault with Zionism. Racism — the feeling of belonging to a “natural group,” of owing loyalty to that group, of wanting to preserve its identity and promote its welfare, of preferring to associate with members of that group rather than with aliens — is a universal, natural, and healthy condition of mankind. Indeed, it is a natural condition of all living things, in a sense, and they all owe their very existence to its universality.

But Zionism — whether one prefers to call it Jewish nationalism or Jewish racism — goes far beyond that. It is a distorted racism, a perverted and predominantly negative racism, expressing itself more in hostility toward other peoples than in positive aspirations for the Jewish people.

This has been true from the time of Moses, who instructed his fellow Jews to massacre without pity the Gentiles whose lands they wanted to seize, lest they later be inconvenienced by the survivors:

“But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come to pass that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes and thorns in your sides and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.’” (Numbers 33:55)

The advice was generally followed in the old days, and it is still followed today. Joshua, after capturing the city of Jericho and looting it of all its “silver and gold and vessels of brass and iron”… “utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and ass, with the edge of the sword.”

And, more than 3,000 years later, the Haganah and the Irgun and the Stern Gang massacred the entire populations of Palestinian villages in order to terrify the other Arab inhabitants of Palestine into fleeing the country and leaving their homes and farms and businesses to be taken over by Jews.

This hostility toward other peoples, this extreme Jewish xenophobia and ethnocentricity, this contempt for everything not Jewish is revealed over and over again in the writings of Zionists, just as in their actions. It is a masochistic sort of racism, which glories and revels in the anti-Jewish hostility which it in turn provokes.

Theodor Herzl, the Zionist leader whose efforts were most essential to the founding of the state of Israel, wrote in his book The Jewish State (published in 1896):

Every nation in whose midst Jews live is, either covertly or openly, anti-Semitic… Anti-Semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the Gentiles… We are one people — our enemies have made us one in our despite… Distress binds us together, and, thus united, we suddenly discover our strength.

The Zionist Jakob Klatzkin (1882-1948) carried the idea further in his book Crisis and Decision, published in 1921, and addressed to the German people:

We are not hyphenated Jews (i.e., German-Jews); we are Jews with no qualifications or reservations. We are simply aliens; we are a foreign people in your midst, and, we emphasize, we wish to stay that way. There is a wide gap between you and us, so wide that no bridge can be laid across. Your spirit is alien to us; your myths, legends, habits, customs, traditions and national heritage, your religious and national shrines, your Sundays and holidays… they are all alien to us. The history of your triumphs and defeats, your war songs and battle hymns, your heroes and their mighty deeds, your national ambitions and aspirations, they are all alien to us. The boundaries of your lands cannot restrict our movements, and your border clashes are not of our concern. Far over and above the frontiers and boundaries of your land stands our Jewish unity… Whosoever calls the foreign (Gentile) land a fatherland is a traitor to the Jewish people … A loyal Jew can never be other than a Jewish patriot… We recognize a national unity of diaspora Jews, no matter in which land they may reside. Therefore, no boundaries can restrain us in pursuing our own Jewish policy.

And the “American” Zionist, Samuel Untermyer, said in 1933: “Other races have come and gone. The Jew has survived. Persecution cannot crush him. The Jews are the aristocrats of the world.”

Such unbridled and reckless arrogance, stemming from the persistent Jewish notion that the children of Israel have been “chosen” to rule the world and must, therefore, remain aloof from the goyim, destined to be their slaves when the Messiah comes, has led to a great deal of friction between the Jews and their Gentile hosts throughout the ages. And yet even this negative and peculiarly Jewish form of racism could be tolerated, if that were all.

The Jews could all go off to the Middle East and finish butchering the Palestinians, or they could all settle on a large island by themselves somewhere, and they could then indulge their narcissist fantasies and their hatred of the rest of mankind to their hearts’ content, and we would not care.

But gathering the Jews of the world together in one place is not really part of the Zionist scheme. They want an exclusively Jewish homeland, all right, but they also want to maintain their death grip on the economies and the governments of the Gentile lands where they live as minorities. Zionism is built not only on the ideas of Jewish exclusiveness and Jewish superiority, but also on the idea of Jewish world dominion.

Not a world dominion achieved by force of Jewish arms or by any frontal assault on the hated goyische world, but a dominion brought about by infiltration and subversion, by the encouragement of weakness and decadence among the Gentiles, by the imperceptibly slow injection of a Jewish spiritual poison into the hearts and minds of the goyim, destroying their will to resist.

And therein we have the explanation of the seeming dilemma: Jews who have devoted all their talents and energies to combatting racism being themselves charged with racism by the world community. Yes, Jews are against racism — racism among the Gentiles, that is, because they want to destroy the unity of the Gentile nations. And, yes, Jews (or Zionists, if you prefer) are racists, because they, more than any other people, realize the necessity of maintaining their own unity.

The condemnation by the United Nations of Zionism is, on the whole, a welcome move, but it nevertheless fails to face the issue as squarely as it should. The UN has condemned the Jews for their behavior in Palestine, for practicing both physical and cultural genocide against the Palestinian people. But that is only a negative form of the same racism which is practiced by all healthy peoples. What the Jews are doing to the Palestinians is what the Turks did to the Armenians, what the Serbs did to the Croats, what the American pioneers did to the Indians, what the Germans did to the Jews (although hardly to the tune of 6,000,000 as the Jews claim). It is the way of the world, even if, in our Western squeamishness, we would like to see more positive and fewer negative expressions of this natural and universal racism.

And so, in this regard, the Jews are at least justified in their claim that the UN condemnation of Zionist racism is hypocritical, because most of the members of the UN practice their own forms of racism. But if the UN were really an honest organization, it could have issued a denunciation of Zionism against which the Jews would have no defense.

The UN could have pointed out that Jewish racism is a unique evil — a unique danger to the world — not because the Jews want Palestine all to themselves or even because they aspire to world rule, but because of the truly unique ways in which the Jews go about implementing their Zionist designs.

Recognizing more clearly than any other people the importance of racism as a natural defense — as Nature’s way of maintaining racial integrity — the Jews deliberately go about neutralizing the racism of their intended victims, thus destroying their unity, their cohesiveness, and their will to resist. It is a tactic which has proven extraordinarily effective in the past, a tactic to which the Western peoples in particular have proven susceptible.

It is for this reason that the Germans, the one nation in modern times which developed a defense against Jewish racism, named the Jews “der Weltfeind” — the world enemy.

Johann Gottlieb Fichte was one of those rare men who are both thinkers and heroes. His challenging Wissenschaftslehre (“doctrine of science”) remains one of the most ambitious attempts to encompass the world and its meaning in a speculative philosophical system. In his elaboration of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of ethical idealism, Fichte achieved a compelling synthesis of the complementary values of freedom and duty. His conception of the world as the material projection of an ultimately all-embracing World-Ego exercised a seminal influence on the Romantic movement, that radical reassertion of Aryan racial values which in Fichte’s time was displacing the shallow rationalism of the Enlightenment.

Yet it is as the hero who called for a regeneration of the German spirit in an epoch-making series of addresses in a conquered Berlin swarming with hostile French troops that Fichte will live on in the memory of his countrymen. In his Addresses to the German Nation, the philosophus teutonicus, as the patriot-poet Ernst Moritz Arndt dubbed Fichte, revealed a vision of his people’s destiny which transcends national boundaries and still beckons to our own and future generations for fulfillment.

In December of 1807, it seemed that Napoleon and his all-conquering French armies had extinguished the last ember of German nationhood. In the year before, the Holy Roman Empire, the only tangible expression of the political unity of the German nation, feeble though it was, had been dissolved. More important, Fichte’s adopted homeland, Prussia, had reaped the fruits of over a decade’s timidity and indifference to the fate of its German neighbors. On October 14, 1806, at the twin battles of Jena and Auerstädt, Napoleon’s troops had all but annihilated the once matchless Prussian military machine. After fleeing to Königsberg in East Prussia, the well-meaning but irresolute Hohenzollern, King Frederick William III, had been forced to sign away half his country’s territory in the humiliating Treaty of Tilsit. Prussia was further obligated to pay a crippling indemnity, and Berlin was garrisoned by French troops.

More ominous than the military collapse of Prussia and the other German states was the concomitant decline in German morale. The purely dynastic patriotism which the various German princes had attempted to foster among their subjects had proved no match for the intense nationalism which spurred the French invaders. Although, predictably, Germany’s Jews had accorded Napoleon his most enthusiastic welcome, many a Berlin burgher had also cheered the triumphant entry of the French imperial army. Prominent citizens sought audiences with the emperor, and sycophantic writers wrote panegyrics to his genius.

In pointed contrast to Napoleon’s effusive admirers, German patriots had fallen silent, content to denounce the foreign oppressors only to their most trusted friends in the privacy of their drawing rooms. There was ample justification for their timidity. French spies and German informers in their service were everywhere, and the French censors had more than blue pencils at their disposal.

Little more than a year before, Johannes Palm, a Nuremberg bookseller, had been arrested in connection with the writing and circulation of an anonymous anti-French pamphlet entitled Germany in Her Deepest Humiliation. He had been betrayed to the authorities by a German policeman. On August 26, 1806, Palm had been shot in the little Austrian town of Braunau-on-the-Inn (which, 83 years later, was to acquire even greater cause for the veneration of German patriots).

In these desperate circumstances, the philosopher Fichte resolved to speak out publicly in the cause of the German nation. He had accompanied the Prussian court and the remnants of Prussia’s battered army to Königsberg in 1806. There, his reputation for radicalism had frustrated him in his attempts to be appointed field preacher to the troops. Disappointed but still overflowing with determination to rekindle the German spirit, Fichte returned to Berlin in August 1807.

He took up residence with his family in the secluded Georgengarten, in a section of Berlin rarely frequented by the French soldiers. In the following months, he immersed himself in the writings of Machiavelli and the Swiss educator Pestalozzi, but above all in the Annalsof Tacitus, in which the heroic deeds of Hermann the Cheruscer against the Roman legions find their echo.

Drawing on these writers for inspiration, Fichte began to compose a series of lectures which incorporated the spirit of Machiavelli’s and Hermann’s fervent patriotism, and drew on Pestalozzi’s concrete proposals for educational reform. Professor Fichte (who was at that time a member of the faculty of the University of Erlangen) announced the addresses in a brief notice in the Vossischer Zeitung, one of the leading Berlin newspapers of the day. According to the announcement, the lecture series was to be the continuation of a popular course Fichte had delivered in Berlin three years before, which he had titled The Characteristics of the Present Age.

The Berliners who crowded the amphitheatre of the Academy of Sciences at noon on Sunday, December 13, 1807, were doubtless drawn by more than intellectual curiosity. Fichte had never shrunk from controversy, particularly in addressing the vital questions of the day, nor did he show any qualms in skewering his intellectual opponents on the sharp prongs of his scathing polemics. Would he be as forthright in dealing with the French?

There was also the problem of continuity with the previous lecture series. Attentive students of Fichte could recall that in his Characteristics addresses, the philosopher had represented himself as something other than the fervent patriot he had revealed himself to be in the intervening years. In fact, Fichte had proudly boasted of a cosmopolitanism in which “we ourselves and our descendants can remain indifferent forever to the affairs and fates of nations and states.” How were these sentiments to be reconciled with Fichte’s present stance?

Fichte was not unmindful of Palm’s fate. Later, during the course of his lectures, he wrote to his friend, the Prussian counselor Beyme: “I know full well what I am risking; I know that I can be shot just like Palm. But I have no fear, and would gladly die for the realization of my goal.”

Elsewhere Fichte wrote: “The only decisive factor is, can you hope that the good to be accomplished is greater than the danger to be risked? That good is inspiration, exaltation. My personal danger doesn’t matter; rather, it could be extremely advantageous. My family and my son would not lack the nation’s assistance; my son would reap the benefits of his father’s martyrdom. That would be the best outcome. I couldn’t make better use of my life.”

It was in this spirit that Fichte inaugurated his Addresses to the German Nation. On the podium of the packed amphitheatre, he presented a commanding appearance. Short but robust, his sharp features radiated firmness of purpose. As Immanuel Hermann Fichte, his son and biographer, later wrote, “Fichte’s words in his lectures sweep along like a storm cloud that sheds its fire in separate strokes. He does not move, but he uplifts the soul.” Fichte immediately established the connection with his lectures on The Characteristics of the Modern Age. In the Characteristics, Fichte had developed a scheme of five successive ages, somewhat similar to that propounded by the great German dramatist and critic Gotthold Ephraim Lessing some years before. According to Fichte, human history was a process of evolutionary progress, yet during the Enlightenment the all-too-rapid supersession of the age of blind faith and obedience by a human reason not yet anchored in a foundation of a real knowledge had ushered in an age of “completed sinfulness.”

Now, Fichte proclaimed, the age of completed sinfulness had come to an end, and it was the task of the Germans to lead all mankind to a new epoch of liberation. Despite his universal aims, Fichte made clear that he spoke “only of Germans and only for Germans.” It was only the German people who had the qualities of character demanded for initiating the new era. But first it was necessary “to avert the downfall of our nation, which is threatened by its fusion with foreign peoples, and win back again an individuality that is self-supporting and quite incapable of any dependence on others.”

From time to time as Fichte spoke, the blare of martial music reached the ears of his listeners. The broad Berlin avenue Unter den Linden ran past the Academy of Sciences, and Napoleon’s officers staged frequent parades to maintain the élan of their troops.

Within the amphitheatre itself there were Berliners whose attentiveness was neither the product of patriotic ardor nor of a thirst for philosophical enlightenment. They were well known to be informers to the French authorities, and they pricked up their ears to catch any hints of rebelliousness against the rule of the heralds of the “Rights of Man.”

Fichte had cleverly anticipated them. It was not his purpose to castigate the French so much as to promote a German national revival. Besides, as he pointed out, it was not at that time possible to dislodge the conquerors by merely military means. Despite his surface disavowal of anti-French aims, however, Fichte never missed an opportunity, all through the Addresses, to belabor the French and, indeed, Napoleon himself, with a characteristically French irony, which evidently eluded the French military government’s journeymen snoops.

The solution which Fichte offered to the ills which beset the German nation, both at the hands of the French and in the context of the self-seeking which had pervaded all classes in Germany even before defeat, was “a total change of the existing system of education.” In its place was to be instituted a system of national education (Nationalerziehung), to apply to “every German without exception, so that it is not the education of a single class, but the education of the nation, simply as such and without excepting any of its individual members.”

Fichte concluded his first address with an inspirational evocation of his purpose in speaking out: “The dawn of the new world is already past its breaking; already it gilds the mountaintops, and heralds the coming day. I wish, so far as in me lies, to catch the rays of this dawn and weave them into a mirror, in which our grief-stricken age may see itself; so that it may believe in its own existence, may perceive its real self, and, as in a prophetic vision, may see its own development, its coming forms pass by.”

Fichte’s own life and intellectual development uniquely qualified him for his role as herald of Germany’s awakening. The philosopher’s career provides ample evidence of his own possession of those qualities of mind and will which he sought to instill in others, in sharp contrast to certain other world-betterers (Rousseau and Marx spring to mind).

Johann Gottlieb Fichte was born on May 19, 1762, in Rammenau, Upper Lusatia, in what was then the electorate of Saxony. His origins were humble. His father was a weaver, his mother a woman of simple piety. When Fichte was nine, his quick intelligence caught the eye of a local nobleman, Baron von Miltitz, who decided to sponsor his education. After two years of instruction at a neighboring parsonage, Fichte was enrolled in the renowned Schulpforta, a private boarding school which today numbers, in addition to Fichte, the poet Klopstock, the historian Ranke, and the philosopher Nietzsche among its illustrious alumni.

The education which Fichte acquired at Schulpforta qualified him for membership in Germany’s intellectual elite without estranging him from a consciousness of himself as a man of the people. When Fichte was forced to abandon his university studies after only a year, due to his patron’s death, his democratic feelings were reinforced by nearly a decade’s experience as a tutor to the sons of the noble and wealthy. Treated as little better than a servant by his wealthy employers, Fichte gained a life-long contempt for the aristocracy.

The turning point in Fichte’s life came with his introduction, by a university student whom he was tutoring, to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Fichte immediately embraced Kant’s rejection of the shallow rationalism and materialism in vogue in German and French philosophy during the 18th century, as well as his “intuitive” justification of God and the immortality of the soul. Fichte quickly mastered Kant’s philosophy and in 1791, with Kant’s approval, anonymously published A Critique of All Revelation, which was immediately taken to be Kant’s own work. When Fichte’s authorship became known, his reputation was assured. Shortly thereafter, at the urging of Goethe, Fichte was appointed a professor of philosophy at the University of Jena in Saxe-Weimar.

While at Jena, Fichte evolved his Wissenschaftslehre, in which he dispensed with Kant’s concessions to a reality capable of being objectively apprehended in favor of a world view based entirely on the supremacy of the mind and the will. Among the students he decisively influenced were the poet Novalis, the philosopher Schelling, and the Schlegel brothers, who were both to become outstanding philologists.

In 1799, Fichte was forced out of Jena following a controversy worked up by his opponents around the specious charge that Fichte was an atheist. Departing the allegedly tolerant Saxe-Weimar, he found a ready reception in absolutist Prussia.

In Prussia, Fichte began to develop his philosophy in a direction which took more cognizance of the importance of the nation and the state in providing the conditions under which knowledge and virtue might be attained and cultivated. In 1800 he wrote The Closed Commercial State, which sought to harmonize the exigencies of economic justice and the needs of the state. As the first description of a national socialism in other than utopian terms, The Closed Commercial State had no small influence on future political thought in Germany.

By 1806 Fichte had evolved the essentials of the ideology of German nationalism which animated the Addresses to the German Nation.

Despite Fichte’s situation of the Addresses in the context of his complex Wissenschaftslehre, their central thesis—that Germany’s rebirth was to be accomplished through a program of “national education”—is relatively easy to grasp. The ideas which underlie this thesis, however, require a certain amount of elucidation, especially for the modern reader.

Those who approach the Addresses in anticipation of a supercharged distillate of anti-French, patriotic fustian will doubtless be disappointed. Fichte’ s purpose in delivering the Addresses was not so much to excoriate the Corsican tyrant and his French (and German) minions as to galvanize his fellow Germans into effective thought and action.

Americans weaned for two generations on propaganda depicting the Germans as frenzied chauvinists will have difficulty in visualizing the degree of indifference to Germany’s political fortunes which prevailed among German intellectuals in Fichte’s time. During the previous 50 years the leading writers and thinkers of Germany had emancipated the nation’s literature and philosophy from their slavish imitation of French models. Yet, in the political sphere, the ideal of men such as Goethe and Kant remained a hazy cosmopolitanism.

Goethe, in particular, affected an Olympian detachment, going so far as to receive Napoleon cordially when the emperor passed through Weimar. As we have seen, even Fichte was long able to delude himself in the notion that he, too, was a “citizen of the world.”

The special task which Fichte set himself in the writing the Addresses to the German Nation was to imbue educated Germans with a sense of national mission. To that end, he played on the feelings of cultural and linguistic pride which German intellectuals had developed over the preceding decades.

Fichte argued that the German Volk was superior in character to those peoples in Europe, often originally German, who had abandoned their original languages for new ones derived from Latin. Drawing heavily on the theories of the philologist and literary critic August Wilhelm von Schlegel, Fichte differentiated between German, a “living language” or “original language” (Ursprache), able to form an intellectual and philosophical vocabulary from its own roots, and the Romance languages, which were forced to draw their scholarly words from a dead language.
According to Fichte, this reliance (in the case of the German language) on native words with concrete connotations to depict the “supersensuous” insured a clarity and honesty of expression sadly lacking in such languages as French and Italian. In fact, the Germans owed their “honest diligence and earnestness in all things” solely to their language.

Unwieldy as this sort of bold reductionism strikes us today, Fichte made good use of it in stirring national pride. Despite his ignorance of the biological factors underlying group differences, Fichte was unerring in delineating the strong points of the German character. In a memorable passage, he described the German spirit as “an eagle, whose mighty body thrusts itself on high and soars on strong and well-practiced wings into the empyrean, that it may rise nearer to the sun whereon it delights to gaze,” in contrast to the less inspired Latin peoples, whose genius he likened to “a bee, which with busy art gathers the honey from the flowers and deposits it with charming tidiness in cells of regular construction.”

Having established at length the worth of German culture and character, Fichte emphasized that the German language, the basis of character and culture, was in danger of disappearing in a Germany dominated by aliens. (“Where a people has ceased to govern itself, it is equally bound to give up its language and coalesce with its conquerors, in order that there may be unity and internal peace and complete oblivion of relationships which no longer exist.”)

The system of national education which Fichte proposed to insure the future survival of the German language—and, thus, of the German people—embodied a far more radical conception than is perhaps evident at first glance. The idea of inculcating in an elite a virtue which can only be acquired through knowledge goes back at least as far as Plato’s Republic. Fichte revised this idea by boldly mandating such an education for the entire youth of the nation.

In the words of Fichte, “So there is nothing left for us but just to apply the new system to every German without exception, so that it is not the education of a single class, but the education of the nation, simply as such and without excepting any of its members. In this, that is to say in the training of man to take real pleasure in what is right, all distinction of classes which may in the future find a place in other branches of development will be completely removed and vanish. In this way there will grow up among us, not popular education, but real German national education.”

The educational system which Fichte envisioned was indebted to the theories of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, a Swiss who had made his life’s work the education of the children of the poor. In contrast to the force-feeding of the intellect which was the staple of rationalist educational practice, Pestalozzi laid stress on the development of the child’s character. To this concern Fichte added a special emphasis on the training of the will, which he felt had long been greatly neglected by German educators. Briefly, Fichte’s conception of national education was “the art of training the whole man completely and fully for manhood.”

According to Fichte, “When once the generation that has been formed by this education is in existence—a generation impelled by its taste for the right and the good and by nothing else whatever; a generation provided with an understanding that is adequate for its standpoint and recognizes the right unfailingly on every occasion; a generation equipped with full power, both physical and spiritual, to carry out its will on every occasion—when once this generation is in existence, everything that we can long for in our boldest wishes will come into being of itself from the very existence of that generation, and will grow out of it naturally.”

Fichte concluded the Addresses with some of the most stirring oratory in the German language. He threw down a challenge to his German hearers in these words: “Review in your own minds the various conditions between which you now have to make a choice. If you continue in your dullness and helplessness, all the evils of serfdom are awaiting you; deprivations, humiliations, the scorn and arrogance of your conqueror; you will be driven and harried in every corner, because you are in the wrong and in the way everywhere; until by the sacrifice of your nationality and your language, you have purchased for yourselves some subordinate and petty place, and until in this way you gradually die out as a people. If, on the other hand, you bestir yourselves and play the man, you will continue in a tolerable and honorable existence, and you will see growing up among you and around you a generation that will be the promise for you and for the Germans of most illustrious renown. You will see in spirit the German name rising by means of this generation to be the most glorious among all peoples; you will see this nation the regenerator and re-creator of the world.”

As is well known, Fichte’s Addresses helped fan the dying embers of German national feeling into a raging inferno which swept the French invaders from the fatherland in the Wars of Liberation five years later. Yet Fichte’s radicalism in demanding a united Germany organized along the lines spelled out in his Addresses waited a century and a quarter for its brief realization. In the short period of Germany’s resurgence under National Socialism, Fichte’s ideal of a generation of German youth steeled in character and will first began to take shape.

Fichte’s courage in saying what had to be said at the risk of his own life in 1807 should serve to embolden White men and women in possession of the truth today to speak out unhesitatingly. The philosopher’s vision of a national education cutting across class lines and embracing the whole people to mold young men and women into principled members of their nation and race will remain a beacon urging us on to the future reality.

Haiti was once the jewel of the Caribbean and the French colonial empire, the social life there even rivaled Paris.

Then the democracy craze hit France and was carried along to Haiti.

They took it so far in Haiti, that they even started applying it to to the Black workers. The Whites sat in their clubs, drawing rooms and libraries and watched as Blacks were declared their brothers and equals. They talked about it, they discussed it, but by then it was too late, they were all to be butchered in hideous ways.

What had once been the richest and most productive part of the new world sank back into the squalor of the stone age.

A century later the Marines had to go in to ‘bring them democracy’ again. They stayed there for a while, built them schools, roads, telephones and infrastructure. Eventually they pulled out in 1934 and straight away the Blacks returned to their old way of doing things and Haiti returned to the jungle.

In 1958 the marines went in again, this time to protect them from Communist subversion, but as soon as they left again, the Blacks immediately returned to their old ways.

In 1994 the Marines tried again, this time they were ‘restoring democracy’.

No prizes for guessing what happened when they left.

I present to you: Dr. William Pierce.

This is an old recording, before this immigration thing really got hot.  And it seems that they are indeed beginning to regret the immigration push in Europe, on the lower ranks of the Jew pyramid, as they are being constantly assaulted and harassed by the Muslim hordes they’ve thrust upon that continent.

This speaks to the very nature of the Jew, as a parasite which not designed to have full control of the host, and having achieved full control, can do aught but kill the host and thus himself along with it.  The Jew drive is to hide itself by causing instability and chaos in society, but this has always been limited and controlled.  Now that they have complete control of governments, they are instinctively following the same behavior pattern, and it is causing the destruction of everything.

They don’t really appear to have thought any of it through.  They are scurrying to get some place in Asia, but 6 million American Jews aren’t going to escape when this place collapses under the weight of all these savage animals they’ve flooded us with, and I seriously doubt that the Asians are going to tolerate them anyway.

If the Jew was capable of logically considering, and directing, his collective behavior, it would be possible, in the modern world where physical labor is not required in order to be productive, for us to have a symbiotic relationship with it.  At least, theoretically it would be; they have a certain set of skills which could be useful if they were not so diabolical.  It is not capable of collective reflection, however, as it has no coherent collective mandate beyond a pathological pattern of endless destruction and exploitation.  Thus, it has begun to consume itself.

Editorial from National Vanguard magazine #103, January-February 1985

The longest-running national news story of recent months certainly must be the one about the Aryan Resistance Movement (also named in various news accounts as the White American Bastion, the Silent Brotherhood, and the Order). Newspapers have reported, week after week, on multimillion-dollar armored-car robberies and a counterfeiting operation intended to finance a violent overthrow of the U.S. government, fiery shootouts between White revolutionaries and SWAT teams of Federal police agents, an assassination of a Jewish radio commentator and alleged “hit lists” of government officials to be killed, and massive FBI manhunts for surviving members of a group that is said to have involved no more than 40 members. Interest in the Aryan Resistance Movement (ARM) on the part of the television networks and the nationally circulated print media seems still to be growing.

The fascination this story holds for the minions of the controlled media may be due to any of several features. First, there is the sheer scale and relative professionalism of the thing. Previous instances of direct action by “White extremists” have been on the order of three or four Ku Klux Klansmen tanking up on beer and then firing a shotgun from a pickup truck as they sped through a Black neighborhood. By way of contrast, in just one armored-car hijacking (in Ukiah, California) 17 members of ARM, operating with military precision, riddled a Brink’s truck with automatic-rifle fire and made off with $3.6 million in cash. The group recruited two Brink’s branch managers and were preparing to clean out the main Brink’s vaults in San Francisco, where as much as $50 million in cash is kept, when an informer betrayed them. By that time ARM had accumulated a million-dollar arsenal of military weapons, including machine guns, hand grenades, and night-vision sights for their automatic-rifles, as well as high-tech communications equipment and a huge store of explosives.

Then there is the scope of ARM’s aims. Violent White resistance in the past nearly always has been strictly local in character, and largely unplanned: ad hoc opposition to a forced busing program, to the destruction of a White neighborhood by a Federal race-mixing decree, or to public activity by an anti-White group. A notable example of the last was the 1979 shootout between Klan members and Black and Jewish members of the Communist Workers’ Party, in Greensboro, North Carolina, in which five Communists were killed.

ARM, on the other hand, set its sights on a full-scale, armed revolution, ending with the purification of the U.S. population and the institution of a race-based, authoritarian government. It recruited its activists throughout the country, and it carried out its strikes in half-a-dozen states. Whether or not these strikes were ill-advised, whether or not the recruiting tactics were well thought out, even the question of the feasibility of any type of armed action against the U.S. government under the conditions which now prevail — these questions are beside the point. The fact is that because of ARM, White resistance in America will never again be the same. The stakes have been raised substantially, and a new level of action has been set, which will be the baseline for future efforts.

But ARM is unique in more ways than the magnitude of its plans and the spectacular nature of its operations. There has been an element of do-or-die heroism, of fanaticism and determination, and of idealistic motivation in the group which causes the heart to swell and the blood to pump more strongly in some observers — and which causes cold shivers in others. The gentlemen of the press belong almost entirely to the latter group, but even in this deracinated rabble there are a few who still are able to recognize heroism when they see it, and who cannot help but feel a twinge of the White man’s natural response to it. Thus, some of the early Washington-state newspaper stories of the death of the group’s leader, Robert Mathews, after his single-handed standoff against 100 secret policemen — especially those stories which quoted from his last testament, a moving document indeed, written just two days before — lacked the sneering, spiteful tone of later, nationally-distributed news stories.

The real portent of the ARM saga, in fact, lies in the character of Mathews. He hardly fit the controlled media’s stereotyped image of the White activist — that of the deranged “hater” or the cowardly braggart. He was a man who had no time or inclination to hate or brag. He was an intensely earnest man, a passionate man, with strong convictions about what was right and what was wrong, but he also was a very private man, who believed in leaving others alone as long as they left him alone.

In the little town of Metaline Falls, Washington, where he spent the last decade building a small farm on land he cleared from the forest and providing for his wife and son, he was known as a “straight arrow”: always friendly and helpful, but never nosy; a hard, steady worker; a non-drinker and non-smoker.

That is not to say that Mathews was oblivious to what was going on elsewhere in the world. He had a voracious interest in both current events and history, and he spent much of his spare time in serious reading. He wanted to understand his race’s past, so that he could make some sense out of the chaotic present and gain some hint of what the future might hold.

As his understanding grew, so did his concern — and so also did, to use his own words, “a suppressed emotion buried deep within my soul, that of racial pride and consciousness.” He viewed with increasing alarm the darkening of America by an unchecked horde of non-White immigrants, the insidious inculcation of non-White values into young Americans by a degenerate educational system and alien-controlled entertainment media, the treasonous subservience of the nation’s political leaders to a bloodthirsty band of gangsters in the Middle East.

“By the time my son had arrived,” he wrote in his last testament, “I realized that White America — indeed my entire race — was headed for oblivion, unless White men rose and turned the tide. The more I came to love my son, the more I realized that, unless things changed radically, by the time he was my age he would be a stranger in his own land, a blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan in a country populated mainly by Mexicans, mulattoes, Blacks, and Asians. His future was growing darker by the day.”

This realization that his nation and the future of his son were being destroyed before his eyes tormented Mathews. What distressed him even more, however, was the pusillanimous acceptance by his fellow Americans of the evils overtaking the country. Earlier he had written: “A great sickness has overcome us. Why do our people do nothing? What madness is this?”

He contrasted the selfish and cowardly behavior of most White Americans today with their heroism of an earlier era, and with the heroism of their European forbears. “Were the men of the Alamo only a myth?” he asked.

The more he agonized over these questions, the more clearly Mathews saw his own responsibility. Finally, his conscience would let him wait no longer. “I have no choice,” he wrote. “I must stand up like a White man and do battle.”

And he did.

He took up arms against the enemies of his race, knowing that he had virtually no chance of defeating them, or even of surviving more than a few skirmishes against their overwhelmingly greater resources. “Even so,” he acknowledged, “I have no fear. For the reality of life is death, and the worse the enemy can do to me is shorten my tour of duty in this world. I will leave knowing my family and friends love me and support me. I will leave knowing that I have made the ultimate sacrifice to secure the future of my children.”

He held to his resolve to do or die, until the end. On November 24, 1984, he and a companion were surprised in a Portland, Oregon motel by some two dozen Federal police agents, after an informer had betrayed him. His companion surrendered, but Mathews shot his way out of the trap in a blaze of gunfire. The following month he and a half-dozen associates were surrounded in their headquarters building on Whidbey Island, Washington, by a task force of more than 100 heavily armed secret policemen.

One or two of the revolutionaries slipped through the police lines and escaped. Of the others, all except Mathews surrendered. For 34 hours he exchanged gunfire with Federal agents, single-handedly repulsing two waves of agents who attempted to storm the headquarters. He used a machine gun to drive off an FBI attack helicopter. After the FBI succeeded in setting fire to the building with magnesium flares, Mathews continued firing through the smoke and flames. He died when tons of stored munitions exploded and demolished the building.

What Robert Mathews did will remain incomprehensible to many White Americans. How can your average “yuppy,” steeped in the values of the “me” generation, understand Mathews’ concern for the type of world his son would inherit?

How can the clever lawyer in his $500 suit, accustomed to figuring all the angles before making a move, fathom the soul of someone who knew that he must act, regardless of the personal consequences, because it was his responsibility as a man to do so?

How can America’s soft, feminized, materialistic masses have any idea of the thinking of a man who made a deliberate choice to die, when he might have lived — to die fearlessly and defiantly — solely so his death could set an example for other fearless and defiant fighters who would follow him in the years and decades to come?

No, many Americans will not understand. But some will. And they will also understand that in the final showdown there will be no other way but Bob Mathews’ way.

No combination of clever lawyers, yuppies, and Joe Sixpacks will ever beat the Jews. Money will not beat them. Brains alone will not beat them. Votes will not beat them. But blood will, eventually.

The Jews know how to deal with materialists, who think the way they do. They have long experience at outmaneuvering clever schemers and outspending well-heeled opponents. They are past masters of intimidation and bribery. They will always whip those who try to fight them on the Jews’ own terms.

But how will the Jews cope with the man who does not fear them and is willing, even glad, to give his life in order to hurt them? What will they do when a hundred good men rise up to take Bob Mathews’ place? Where will they find enough secret police to protect them?

It is a hard truth to face, but America has gone far beyond the point where its problems might have been overcome bloodlessly or with relatively little sacrifice. The evil which has spread across the land can still be destroyed, but only by men like Robert Mathews — only when enough such men have been awakened and have said to themselves, as he did: “I have no choice. I must stand up like a White man and do battle.”

Robert Mathews Last Testament (with notes by Dr. William Pierce)