topic by
GM
7/13/2002 (2:13) |
|
AMERICAN DISSIDENT VOICES
Broadcast of July 13, 2002
A Question of Sanity
by Dr. William Pierce
If you've been listening to me on these _American Dissident Voices_
broadcasts for very long, you know that I nearly always focus on
concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what's
happening in the world, and occasionally making predictions. Recently
I've talked about the government's determination to start another war in
the Middle East, using Saddam Hussein as an excuse; about the realities
of so-called 'free trade' and what it's doing to American autonomy and
American sovereignty; about the destructive impact of feminism on our
lives; about the Jewish control of the news and entertainment media;
about the ongoing extortion effort by organized Jewry against the rest
of the world, using the 'Holocaust' as their excuse for demanding a
handout; and about a hundred other very concrete subjects. I don't often
deal with abstractions or with philosophical questions -- but sometimes
I do. I hope you'll forgive me if I do so again today.
Actually, I will get into some concrete, factual matters today, but
first I want to pose an abstract question. When a person observes
behavior all around him that seems crazy, that seems insane, how does he
know that it is not he himself who is insane rather than the people
around him? When other people are doing and saying things which seem
wholly unreasonable, how does he know that he is not the one who is
unreasonable instead of the other people? Do we have any absolute
standard by which to judge such matters?
Let me give a specific example of this problem. I have stated, both
explicitly and implicitly, on a large number of occasions my belief that
Blacks or Negroes or Afro-Americans or whatever you want to call them,
are inferior as a race to Whites, or European Americans, in the innate
abilities involved in building and maintaining a civilization. That is,
I've claimed that Whites are smarter and more creative than Blacks.
Now, in opposition to this the U.S. government, the schools, the
churches, and especially the controlled media all claim that there is no
such difference in abilities between Blacks and Whites. A difference in
skin color, yes, but that's all. There's no difference in
problem-solving ability, in creativity, or in temperament between Blacks
and Whites that gives Whites an edge at building or maintaining a
civilization. That's the official dogma. Any government official or any
public school teacher or any minister in a mainstream church who
contradicts this dogma -- or even fails to support it with sufficient
enthusiasm -- will be hounded from his office or from his place of
employment by the media or by his more orthodox colleagues.
So who's crazy: I or all of those folks in the government, the schools,
the churches, and the media? Am I like one of those poor, confused
creatures who goes around with his right hand stuck inside his shirt
claiming that he's Napoleon while everyone else says 'No he's not
Napoleon, he's William Pierce and he's crazy.'?
Or is my case more like that of an Italian teacher who, about 400 years
ago, claimed that the earth revolved around the sun, while nearly
everyone else in the government, the universities, and the church held
the view that the sun revolved around the earth and that to say
otherwise was evidence of either craziness or impiety? How do we decide?
If we go by the numbers, there certainly are a lot more crazy people who
believe they're Napoleon than there are genuine Galileos. And, let's
face it, most people who are out of step with everyone else should be
suspected of being a little crazy, shouldn't they?
Now, I don't mean to compare myself with Galileo. He was truly a great,
creative genius, the sort of genius that our race produces perhaps once
in a century, and he would be a historical celebrity even if he hadn't
had a conflict with the authorities about his astronomical beliefs. But
there are some things to be learned from his case which can help us
answer the first question I posed today, as to how we can judge who is
sane.
First let's note that Galileo was not alone in his beliefs. It was just
that most people who believed as he did had the sense to keep their
mouths shut -- at least in Italy. Galileo wasn't even the originator of
the idea that got him into trouble. He had just looked at Copernicus'
idea of the solar system and decided that it made a lot more sense than
the Ptolemaic ideas that were Politically Correct.
Furthermore, if Copernicus' idea about the solar system hadn't had some
important theological implications, Galileo wouldn't have gotten himself
into trouble for saying that he agreed with Copernicus. Galileo already
had come up with a lot of new ideas which had amazed people, but they
hadn't ridiculed him as being crazy or condemned him as being impious
for these other ideas -- because these other ideas had no obvious
religious significance. But the Copernican idea did have some religious
significance, and that made a lot of difference, even to people who
didn't take religion very seriously: but who did have a vested interest
in the status quo, and that included a great many bureaucrats and
academicians.
A couple of differences between the cases of Galileo and the fellows who
believe they're Napoleon are that =no one else= agrees with the would-be
Napoleons, either publicly or privately. Where as, many other scholars
agreed privately with Galileo but were just too timid to say so
publicly. A second difference is that there is no religious frenzy or
religious bigotry involved when most people consider someone's claim to
be Napoleon. They just laugh and decide that he's joking or he's crazy,
but they don't become indignant about it. They don't have a sudden
attack of piety, the way they did in response to Galileo.
One other thing to note about Galileo's case: The scholars who privately
agreed with him accepted the Copernican idea, as opposed to the
Ptolemaic idea, did not do so for religious reasons. They did so because
the Copernican idea made more sense. It agreed better with the facts,
with the evidence.
Now back to my case. Am I crazy for asserting that Blacks and Whites are
inherently different and unequal in their civilization-building
abilities, or is there something wrong with all of the people in the
government, the schools, the churches, and the media who claim that I am
either crazy or impious -- that is, a 'hater' -- for saying so? If I may
be so presumptuous as to compare my case with that of Galileo, I will
note that as in Galileo's case my assertions of racial differences are
not original: they are not my idea. I have simply looked at the
evidence, at the facts, and have based my conclusions on them. So have a
great many other people, scholars and otherwise, many of whom,
unfortunately, are too timid to say so publicly.
One other very important similarity with the case of Galileo is that the
question of racial differences or racial equality has enormous
theological implications. The theology involved, of course, is the
modern one which has superseded Christianity, even in the churches: the
theology of Political Correctness. And just as in Galileo's day, there
are many people in the government, the schools, even the churches, who
don't take this theology seriously -- who don't really believe it - but
who have a vested interest in maintaining it and therefore will ridicule
or condemn anyone who questions it.
So again, who's crazy: I or the egalitarians? How do we judge?
Let me tell you how I judge such cases: I look at the evidence, at the
facts, and I look at the people involved on each side of the issue, at
what I know about their characters and their intelligence, and I look at
the context, social and historical. But first and foremost I look at the
evidence.
I look at the historical record -- or lack thereof -- in the Black areas
of Africa. I look at the performance -- or lack thereof -- of Blacks in
the other parts of the world to which they were taken, such as the
Americas, the Caribbean. And I look at the records of criminal activity,
of illegitimacy, of drug abuse. And I look at intelligence tests and at
racial biometric studies which were done back before it became
Politically Incorrect to measure brain sizes and morphologies. And I see
a consistency in all of these things. They all fit together: the lower
intelligence, the thicker skulls and smaller brains, the greater
criminal activity, the historical lack of performance. And I conclude
that Blacks almost certainly cannot build a civilization if left to
themselves, and they almost certainly will destroy any civilization
built by others if they are allowed to become a very large presence in
it.
And I compare my conclusions with the conclusions of others. I note that
before the Second World War, virtually everyone -- scholars,
bureaucrats, churchmen, even the media -- came to the same conclusion
that I came to much later -- that is, many years after the war.
Certainly, ordinary White people were universal in their opinion about
the differences in abilities between Whites and Blacks -- although we
always want to be careful about relying on public opinion.
There were a few religious bigots, a few rabid egalitarians, who even
back before the war denied all of the evidence of Black inequality and
insisted that their lack of performance was the consequence of White
oppression and that their lower scores on intelligence tests were due
only to 'cultural bias.' But most people considered these bigots, these
egalitarian zealots, to be a little crazy.
Then after the war the Jews who control the media launched an all-out
campaign to persuade everyone that the bigots were right after all. With
the public advent of television in the 1950s, the media bosses gained an
enormously powerful tool for changing public opinion, and as they began
persuading substantial numbers of the most impressionable segments of
the White public with television dramas portraying Blacks as noble,
intelligent, and unjustly treated -- and also portraying Whites who
objected to mixing with Blacks as primitive, hateful, and repulsive --
the politicians, the churchmen, and the more ambitious academics saw
which way the wind was blowing and began to side with the egalitarians
too.
The 1960s were the real turning point in this postwar propaganda
campaign. That's when the Jews in the media, working closely with the
Jews in the universities, managed to turn American society upside down.
They encouraged drugs, permissiveness, hedonism, and youthful rebellion.
They ridiculed every traditional belief and standard.
The Vietnam war -- or rather the government's vacillating and
pusillanimous conduct of that war -- was a great help to them.
Organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society and the Youth
International Party and a hundred others, nearly all led by Jews,
marched in the streets with Viet Cong flags, burned American flags,
occupied and trashed university administrative offices, burned campus
ROTC buildings, bombed U.S. military installations, encouraged draft-age
young men to burn their draft cards, and generally raised hell, all with
the approval of the mass media. All of this was in the middle of a war,
in which 58,000 young Americans were being killed, and the U.S.
government did nothing to stop the massive treason that was going on in
this country. The consequence of this was to shake the confidence of
nearly everyone. Everything that people had believed was called into
question. It was much easier then to change their beliefs.
I don't want to try to recount the whole history of that period of
artificial turmoil and change in American society. The point is that
public opinion can be manipulated, and public opinion is not a reliable
indicator of what's true and what isn't. That was the case in Galileo's
day, and it's also the case today. It's important to have public opinion
on your side for political reasons, but that has little or nothing to do
with right or wrong.
What we should examine more carefully are the opinions of the
authorities -- the people who formulate the propaganda line for the mass
media and for what is taught in our schools. Is the 180-degree change in
this propaganda line during the past 60 years based on facts and sound
reasoning, or isn't it? I get a lot of hate mail from people under the
influence of this propaganda line: mail from people who tell me that I
am crazy because I do not believe that Blacks and Whites are the same.
And very often these people parrot back to me what they have been taught
by the authorities. I hear the same propaganda statements parroted over
and over again. For example: 'You are crazy for wanting to preserve the
White race. There is no such thing as a pure race. We all have ancestors
of all races if we go back enough generations. So there is no pure White
race for you to preserve.' The unstated implication of this is that,
since we're already mongrelized, there's nothing wrong with more mixing,
and we shouldn't try to stop miscegenation. It's too late. There's no
point in it.
How's this for an equivalent argument: 'There's no point in bathing,
because no matter how carefully we bathe there always are still some
germs left on us: under our fingernails, perhaps, or in our ears. So
let's just stop bathing, since we can't really be clean anyway.'
Another of their standard arguments is this: 'There's more variation
inside the White race than there is between individuals in the White
race and the Black race, so the whole concept of separate races makes no
sense, and you're crazy if you don't accept this.' In plain language,
what this argument says is that it's possible to find two people, both
nominally 'White,' who differ from each other more in intelligence, skin
tone, and other mental and physical characteristics than Colin Powell,
say, or some other octoroon nominally classified as 'Black,' differs
from some people classified as 'White.' And because this large range of
characteristics among individuals who nominally belong to the same race
exceeds the difference between a few selected individuals who nominally
belong to different races, we should ignore the average differences
between the races as a whole.
I guess this argument sounds especially good in some of our 'melting
pot' cities like New York, where one can find just about every shade of
racial mixture imaginable, some of them classified as 'White' and some
as 'Black,' 'Asian,' or 'Hispanic.' But what this argument really tells
us is that we need to do quite a bit of racial housecleaning to make up
for some of the dysgenic practices of the past few centuries. It should
not convince us that there's no difference between Swedes and Haitians.
My point is that these propaganda statements of the egalitarians are
specious. That may not be apparent to the people who write hate letters
to me, but the media bosses and the teachers who preach this line have a
better grasp of logic than the public. Perhaps they do have some sound
arguments on their side, but if so they're keeping them hidden; all of
the ones they use to support their position publicly are full of holes
-- and they know it. And this is something else I take into
consideration in judging who's sane and who isn't.
Finally, there's the matter of motive. The people who turned America
upside down in the 1960s did so by building a coalition of a lot of
different types of people with a grievance against the traditional White
male establishment: feminists, Jews, homosexuals, and Blacks and other
non-Whites, along with a lot of permissively raised, thoroughly spoiled
young Whites. It is from this 1960s coalition that today's new
establishment has come, the establishment that now dominates the
government, the churches, the universities -- and especially the mass
media. These people have a vested interest in maintaining the myths on
which their coalition is built, and their principal myth is that of
egalitarianism.
Everything I've said today amounts to this: Don't let yourself be
buffaloed. Don't let yourself be persuaded to accept anything that
doesn't make sense to you, just because the people trying to buffalo you
are loud and well organized. Look at the facts. Analyze the arguments.
Think about the motives of the people who're telling you that you're
crazy if you don't accept their ideas and their policies. And have
confidence in yourself. When you see the government promoting policies
which seem crazy to you, and you see the media and the churches and the
schools all parroting the same party line, remember Galileo.
We'll get the inmates locked back in their cells yet!
Thanks for being with me again today.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The text
above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident Voices radio
program sponsored by National Vanguard Books. 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.
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 ADV-list.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
==> To subscribe send an e-mail message to: adv-list-request@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Subscribe
==> TO BE REMOVED send an e-mail message to:
adv-list-request@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Unsubscribe
==> 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 comment on this broadcast, please write to: national@natvan.com To
report typos and technical errors in ADV-list or our web site, please
write to: webmaster@natvan.com
To contact us via 'snail mail,' write to:
National Vanguard Books
Attention: ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
The National Alliance: http://www.natvan.com
http://www.natall.com
|
|