SolarGeneral Proudly Presents...
...by Dr. Robert S. Griffin
Previous Chapter | Index | Next Chapter
Why is Pierce so antagonistic toward Jews? Why does he have such a preoccupation with them? This chapter attempts to shed light on those questions. Surely, to the vast majority of readers the perspective expressed in the material that follows will seem way, way off-base. But as wrong-headed as this perspective might appear certain to be, and as uncomfortable as it may be to encounter it, understanding and responding to William Pierce and others like him involves coming to grips with this view of Jewish people and the fact that there are those who adhere to it.
Pierce notes that there are around fourteen million Jews in the world today. 1 Most of them live in Israel and the United States, he reports— about five million in Israel and between five and six million in this country. Jews comprise approximately two-and-a-half percent of the American population.
In Pierce's eyes, Jews are a race apart; they are not white people. As a National Socialist, Pierce's concept of race includes biological inheritance, blood, but goes beyond that to incorporate the history, culture, spirit or soul, and destiny of a people. At various times, rather than speak of Jews as a race, Pierce refers to them as a tribe, an ethnic group, or a people. Whatever Pierce calls them, however, the idea behind it is that Jews are not white. Jews are "them," and whites— and here Pierce is referring especially to whites of northern European background— are "us."
Pierce believes that it is important to keep in mind that historically Jews have lived as a small minority among other peoples. According to Pierce, until the creation of Israel a half-century ago, there was only one period when the Jews had a national existence in the usual sense of the term. That was from the time of King David to the Babylonian conquest, a little over four hundred years. After the Babylonians dispersed the Jews throughout the Middle East in the middle of the sixth-century B.C., Pierce points out, the Jews lived as a minority everywhere and a majority nowhere. But wherever they lived, they maintained their sense of separate identity: “The Jews in Rome did not think of themselves as Romans who happened to believe in Judaism," Pierce contends, "but as Jews who happened to live in Rome — and the same for every other country where they lived.” 2
As Pierce describes it, the Jews adapted “amazingly well” to their peculiar status in the world. They were able to— note his choice of words— "infiltrate areas and accumulate substantial portions of wealth." They did this by collaborating with one another and “preying on the host.” It should be noted that parasites have hosts. Pierce's use of terms like preying and host gives an indication of how he perceives Jews. Pierce quotes the first-century B.C. Greek writer Strabo as remarking that the Jews “have penetrated every country, so that it is difficult to find anyplace in the world where their tribe is not dominant.” 3
The history of the Jews, notes Pierce, is a “chronicle of one persecution after another, right down to modern times.” 4 Jews have been universally despised by the people upon whom they preyed, he says, and they have been expelled from one county in Europe after another— it didn't start with the Germans. Jews are familiar with the tales of their persecution from the time of the pharaohs on through to Hitler, Pierce says, and this has helped cement in their sense of identity and their loyalty to one another. It brings people together if they share the idea that things have been rough for them, that other people have been out to get them, and that they are all in it together and need to stick by one another if they are going to survive, and Jews see things that way, Pierce believes.
Pierce argues that while the Jews have defined their treatment by their hosts as religious bigotry, their so-called mistreatment really has been a case of others' self-defense against persistent deception and exploitation. The many European countries that have kicked Jews out of their lands since the Middle Ages, Pierce contends, have had the same aversive reaction to them that the Egyptians, Greeks, and everyone else in pre-Christian times had. This enmity that other peoples throughout history have felt toward the Jews has served to heighten the Jews' animosity toward them and contributed to Jews' feeling that they are justified in avenging themselves against non-Jews whenever they have the opportunity— that is what Pierce asserts. Pierce recommends the book, A History of the Jews by Abram Sachar, to those who wish to study the details of Jewish history. Pierce says that Sachar, the former president of Brandeis University, looks at things from “a very Jewish point of view,” but that nevertheless the book is very revealing. 5
Pierce says the Jews' mode of existence changed to a certain extent after the Second World War with the “theft of Palestine and the establishment of the new state of Israel on Palestinian territory.” Israel still exists, Pierce claims, only because two-thirds of the Jews live elsewhere and look out for its interests.
Without a constant supply of money extorted from Germany, the United States, and other countries, Israel could not continue to exist. Israel would have gone under half-a-dozen times in its warfare with its neighbors during the past fifty years if the United States had not provided massive military and diplomatic support. If all the Jews in America and Europe sold their television networks and newspapers and film studios and moved to Israel, Israel would soon cease to exist. 6
For a scholarly treatment of Jews, Pierce recommends the books of California State University professor Kevin MacDonald. The MacDonald books are entitled A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Separation and Its Discontents, and The Culture of Critique. 7 "Pretty heavy reading," Pierce says of the MacDonald books, "but very convincing, very thorough."
Pierce sees the fourteen million Jews in the world as comprising a cohesive, committed, and loyal racial interest group. Pierce contends that Jews identify with one another and look out for their common interests more than any other group. They think and act as one big family:
Like most families, they do a lot of arguing and squabbling among themselves. They go to different synagogues— Orthodox and Conservative and Reform— or to no synagogue at all. There are atheist Jews, and there are Jews who have converted to Christianity. There are capitalist Jews and communist Jews, homosexual Jews and heterosexual Jews. There are rich Jews and middle-class Jews, and even a few poor Jews. But despite this apparent diversity they do a better job of cooperating with each other and looking out for their common interests than any other ethnic group in the world. 8
This tendency of Jews to stick together, to favor Jews over non-Jews and to work for the interests of their tribe, Pierce insists, is a prime reason for their extraordinary wealth and power through the ages. Pierce says he wishes whites in our time had the same degree of racial consciousness that Jews possess, but they don't. "This is largely the reason why we are in the mess we're in today," he declares. Pierce acknowledges that there are "clubby little groups" of whites who cooperate with one another to advance their interests. Pierce lists as examples the Council on Foreign Relations and organizations made up of rich and powerful men, corporate heads and bankers and others of that sort. Indeed these groups are powerful, Pierce says, but they don't have a racial or tribal underpinning and focus the way the Jewish group does. These white groups are primarily motivated by their own personal economic or political interests. Virtually all of them are "heavily larded" with Jews, Pierce says, so even if they don't have any blacks or Asians among their membership, they aren't white racial groups as such.
Why are the Jews so unified according to Pierce? One reason, he says, is their religious heritage. Judaism, Pierce claims, is an ethnocentric religion— a racist religion, really. Whereas Christianity and Islam are universalistic religions, open to anyone who chooses to believe in them, Judaism is not.
Judaism is a religion only for the Chosen People, only for the circumcised sons of Abraham. Jews are defined in terms of their bloodlines, not in terms of their faith, which is why non-religious Jews like Freud or Trotsky or even Marx, the father of atheistic communism, are considered Jews as much as the most pious synagogue-goer, with sidelocks and yarmulke. The non- religious Jews don't believe in the hocus pocus in the Torah, but they nevertheless are steeped in the folklore and traditions of Judaism. They are as familiar as their religious cousins are with the claims that Jews are a Chosen People, destined to own all of the world's wealth and be waited on hand and foot by non-Jews. 9
Jews view themselves as a distinct people and superior to the people among whom they live and deserving of whatever advantages they can reap at the expense of non-Jews— so Pierce alleges. 10
Pierce recommends that those who wish to explore the religious basis for Jewish ethnocentrism read the Old Testament, especially the five books of Moses and the book of Isaiah. The five books of Moses are the first five books in the Old Testament— Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Pierce says that chapters sixty and sixty-one in the book of Isaiah contains examples of what he holds to be a fundamental theme in Judaism, that the Jews have been chosen by their tribal god, Yahweh (or Jehovah, however people choose to pronounce it), to own and rule the earth. He notes that in these chapters the Jewish prophet Isaiah “raves” that eventually the Jews shall "suck the milk of the Gentiles" and "eat the riches of the Gentiles," and that the Gentiles will "stand and feed your flocks" and "be your plowmen and your vinedressers." 11 (In the King James version of the Bible I consulted, it was “strangers” and “the sons of the alien” rather than Gentiles in the last two examples Pierce cites.)
"If you really want to rub your nose in the subject," Pierce says, "do some browsing in the Talmud." The Talmud is a compilation of the teachings of Jewish rabbis who lived in the first five centuries of the Christian era. The rabbis erected a distinctively Jewish design for living which has served to maintain the cohesiveness and uniqueness of the Jews as a “people apart” for the succeeding centuries. 12 Pierce told me that he read the Lazarus Goldschmidt edition of the Talmud in German at the Yale University library back in 1965 and found it enlightening. "There is some really breathtaking [anti-Gentile] stuff in the Talmud," he says. 13
In Pierce's eyes, Jews are whites' chief adversaries in their quest to live their way as a people and to realize their destiny as a race. In Pierce's view of it, Jews' ways and whites' ways contradict one another. When whites and Jews share the same geographical space, Pierce holds, Jews pull whites down and deflect them from who they are and where they ought to be going as a race. As Pierce sees it, Jews are waging an undeclared war of a sort on whites, a war that involves cultural and political attacks rather than military strikes, and he is plainly convinced that if whites don't wake up to the fact that they are being besieged and begin to take up the battle, in a few generations they are very likely to be greatly diminished as a people. Pierce thinks that the stakes couldn't be higher in this war. Whites' upward course as a race— and perhaps ultimately, its very survival— is on the line.
Pierce contends that despite their small number, Jews wield more power in this country than any other group regardless of its size. Jews' power far beyond what their numbers would predict comes in part, says Pierce, from their abundant economic resources and their strong political clout, the latter primarily wielded behind the scenes. But what really gives Jews power, argues Pierce, is their control of the news and entertainment media in this country. In particular it is the ability to manage the flow of images and ideas through the popular media that gives Jews the capability to have things their way. That is Pierce's thesis. Jews in the American media— it is a theme that Pierce returns to time and again. Maintaining their status as the dominant minority in America at the present time by controlling the news and entertainment media is different from the way Jews used to look out for their interests, says Pierce. In prior times, according to Pierce, Jews used their wealth to buy influence and privileges by giving or lending money to kings, popes, and emperors. What is very important to take into account, Pierce observes, is that back then except for this economic and political connection with those at the top, Jews by and large maintained a separate existence from non-Jews. Jews usually lived among their own and did not engage in the same occupations as the peoples among whom they lived. Prior to the last couple of centuries, Jews had almost no cultural influence on our people, says Pierce: "They didn't write books or plays, they didn't paint or compose music, they didn't run for public office, and, of course, they didn't have television studios or newspapers or advertising agencies. To a large extent they lived their lives and we lived ours." 14
The great advantage of this arrangement, Pierce says, was that the— again, note the language— damage done by the Jews was mostly economic, along with some political mischief when it suited their purposes. But Jews didn't damage the spirit of our people, Pierce offers. This all changed, he says, with the advent of the mass media and mass democracy. The Jews quickly understood the potential the media gave them for extending their influence from the rulers to the population as a whole. The Jews also quickly caught on to how democracy provided them with the vehicle to translate the power to control the thoughts and attitudes of the public into political power.
It used to be moneylending and bribes, and the pressure was exerted only at the top, on the political leaders of the society. Today, it is control of the mass media of news and entertainment, and the pressure is exerted at every level of society. Some people still talk darkly about international Jewish bankers. Of course there are such animals today, just as there are also international bankers who are not Jews. But the control of the media is the key to Jewish power, not control of banking. The most important Jews today no longer are the Rothschilds, Warburgs, Hambros, and Sassoons [bankers], but instead the Eisners, Levins, Newhouses, Redstones, Bronfmans, and Sulzburgers: the Jewish media bosses. 15
Whether or not the Jews control the mass media is of great concern to Pierce because he is certain that whoever controls the flow of images and ideas in a society wields enormous power. Media power is not power that is distant and impersonal, Pierce points out. The media reach into every home at every waking hour. They shape every individual, young and old, rich and poor, simple and sophisticated. Pierce goes so far as to say that the power the individuals wield who command the media is unprecedented. No king or pope of old, claims Pierce, no conquering hero, ever had such power.
Pierce reminds us that everything we know about circumstances and events outside our neighborhood and workplace and circle of acquaintances— or think we know, anyway— comes from the media.
Most people have a very limited range of real life experiences. Television and films and glossy magazines provide an enormous expansion of experience for the average person by substituting artificial experiences for real experiences. On the television screen viewers experience artificial social relationships, artificial romances, artificial conflicts, artificial life. In advertisements they are given artificial ideals of beauty and fashion, artificial life-styles....And in their newspapers and newsmagazines they are given a...view of what is happening in the world. 16
Exposure to the media results in many people having difficulty distinguishing the artificial world of the media from reality. "Unfortunately, most people do not have sufficient powers of discrimination to distinguish the artificial world of the media from the real world of everyday experience," Pierce observes. "The two worlds merge in their minds, and they can't tell them apart." 17 Pierce showed me a cartoon which he said illustrates this point. A man is bent over fixing a tire on his car which is parked along side of a road in a drenching rain. A little child has his head poked out the window. The father is looking back at him and saying, “No, we can't change channels. Don't you understand? This is real; this is what is happening.”
Most people, Pierce points out, don't quite realize that they have never actually seen or interacted with the president or their favorite movie star or television personality. They have been shown these people, and told about them. Not too long ago, many people experienced profound loss at the deaths of Princess Diana and John F. Kennedy, Jr., whom they had only known on the basis of what the media had shown them. How many of the mourners were fully conscious of that fact? People responded to their deaths in the same way they would have to the deaths of individuals they had actually been with in a flesh-and-blood way. We sometimes fail to realize that we haven't been in the Oval Office meeting. We haven't been in the Middle East. We weren't at Normandy. We didn't know Roosevelt. We didn't know Hitler. We never saw Castro or Mao or Martin Luther King. We have never spoken to Saddam Hussein. They are all words on a page and images and sounds on a television or movie screen. As Pierce sees it, whoever shows us the world beyond our front door— whoever mediates the reality beyond our reach— is incredibly powerful.
Several times in our discussions, Pierce decried the fact that so many people have very little basic real-world experience. A lot of people these days, he said on one occasion, have never seen the birth or the death of an animal. He pointed out how in earlier times our dead relatives would die in our house and we would see their cold, dead bodies in the bedroom. So many fundamental things are experienced vicariously when they once were experienced directly. We are left with an unrealistic view of life, says Pierce. A lot of people, he says— and here he is talking about city- dwellers— almost never touch the earth. They live in a concrete world, a manufactured world. They exist in an invented world. They relate to a virtual reality. Pierce holds that the distinction between what is natural and what is contrived is likely to mean little or nothing to people who live in this way.
The media, says Pierce, create a picture of the world and tell people what to think and feel and do about that picture. Advertisements, for example, don't just show potential customers what is available and provide them with the information they need to choose what they want. Cleverly designed advertising creates wants that didn't exist before. It manipulates people's desires and motivations. In a similar way, entertainment and news programs and print media manipulate viewers' ideas, values, and behavior. Pierce underscores that here he isn't just talking about heavy- handed suppression of news stories or what he calls the blatant propagandizing of history-distorting television docudramas. It is more subtle than that, he says. There is the decision of which stories to cover and which to play down or ignore. There is the reporters' choice of words, their tone of voice, and their facial expressions. There is the wording of headlines. These kinds of things guide our thoughts and opinions too, says Pierce.
The media inform us about how to think and how to conduct ourselves in order to be in tune with the in-crowd, the beautiful people, the smart money, notes Pierce. Pierce believes that people have a strong impulse to conform to a currently accepted or fashionable way to think and be. This desire to be in tune with those “in-the-know” gives people in the media the power to shape opinion. Thus when a television producer expresses approval of certain ideas and behaviors and disapproves of others through the characters and situations he presents, he exerts strong pressure on viewers to align themselves with these ideas and behaviors.
For example, a racially-mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will a “take charge” Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a White racist— that is, any racially-conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial composition of America— is portrayed, at best, as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens. The racist “gun nut,” in fact, has become a familiar stereotype.... 18
Pierce says that news that reaches mass audiences establishes ground rules and boundaries of acceptable opinion.
Consider the media coverage of the Middle East news. Some editors and commentators are slavishly pro-Israel in their every utterance, while others seem nearly neutral. No one, however, dares to suggest that the U.S. government is backing the wrong side in the Arab-Jewish conflict and that it served Jewish interests rather than American interests to send U.S. forces to cripple Iraq, Israel 's principal rival in the Middle East. Thus a spectrum of permissible opinion from pro-Israel to nearly neutral, is established.
Another example is the media treatment of racial issues in the United States. Some commentators seem almost dispassionate in reporting racial strife, while others are emotionally partisan— with the partisanship always on the non-White side. All of the media spokesmen without exception, take the position that “multiculturalism” and racial mixing are here to stay, and that they are good things. 19
According to Pierce, once the spectrum of permissible public opinion is established, every point of view, concept, or proposal within this spectrum is allowed expression, and anything outside this frame is either allowed no expression or is twisted and distorted to reinforce the notion that the ideas and people outside the established boundaries are unacceptably misguided, irrational, evil, or kooky, and aren't deserving of tolerance. That is how it works, says Pierce, and the fact that it works that way has an enormous impact on our lives.
What does Pierce offer to support his contentions that Jews play a dominant part in the news and entertainment media? A good source for answering that question is an article Pierce periodically updates entitled Who Rules America? in which he documents what he alleges to be the “striking prominence” of Jews in the media. The article's authors are listed as the “research staff of National Vanguard Books.” The research staff taking on the job of updating the article when I was in West Virginia turned out to be one person, Bob DeMarais, armed with his computer and a few reference books. In putting together the material in the next few pages, I will draw upon the version of Who Rules America? published on Pierce's Web site in June of 2000. 20 I will refer to Pierce as the author because while he farms out the research, he puts together the material and writes the copy.
In Who Rules America? Pierce notes that government deregulation has resulted in a series of corporate mergers and acquisitions which have produced a handful of multi-billion dollar media giants. “Whenever you watch television," he writes, "whether from a local broadcasting station or via cable or satellite dish; whenever you see a feature film in a theater or at home; whenever you listen to the radio or recorded music; whenever you read a newspaper, book, or magazine— it is very likely that the information or entertainment you receive was produced and/or distributed by one of these megamedia companies." 21 He then lists a number of companies and the people who head them up. What follows is the information Pierce provides in Who Rules America? Unless otherwise indicated, the names listed below are individuals Pierce identifies as being Jewish.
The largest media conglomerate in the world, writes Pierce, is AOL Time Warner. The company is the result of a merger announced in January of 2000 between America Online, this country's largest Internet service provider, and media content provider Time Warner. AOL chief Steve Case became the chairman of the new company, and Bob Pittman, the former president of AOL, became its co-chief operating officer. (Both Case and Pittman are Gentiles.) Gerald Levin, the former head of Time Warner, became AOL Time Warner's chief executive officer. Pierce characterizes Case and Pittman as capitalists and technology types focused on profits and process, and predicts that they will defer to Levin and those he brings on board to deal with the substance of what is transmitted to audiences. Pierce asserts that AOL will be used by Time Warner as a platform for what he calls “Jewish content.”
Prior to its merger with AOL, Time Warner, with thirteen billion dollars in 1997 revenues, was the second largest media conglomerate in the world behind the Walt Disney Company. Time Warner produces films through Warner Brothers Studio, Castle Rock Entertainment, and New Line Cinema. Time Warner's television subsidiary, HBO, is the country's largest pay-TV cable network. In 1996, Time Warner acquired Turner Broadcasting (CNN, TNT, and TBS). Warner Music, with fifty labels, is America 's second largest producer of recorded music. Warner Music, notes Pierce, was an early promoter of “gangsta' rap,” a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly encourage blacks to commit acts of violence against whites. Time Warner's publishing division, whose editor-in-chief is Norman Pearlstine, is the largest magazine publisher in the country. Its publications include Time, Sports Illustrated, People, and Fortune.
Pierce asserts that in 1995 Time Warner, which had twenty percent ownership of the CBS television network at the time, was active in blocking Gentile Ted Turner's effort to buy CBS. CBS's chairman and CEO at that time was Lawrence Tisch, who prior to taking over CBS in 1985 had made billions in theater, hotels, insurance, and cigarettes but had never been in the telecommunications industry. Pierce contends that Tisch was brought on board at CBS back in 1985 to block Turner's first attempt to buy that network. The Jews, Pierce says, wanted to be certain that the “Tiffany Network” (premier network) stayed in their hands.
The Walt Disney Company, with 1997 revenues of twenty-three billion dollars, is the second largest media conglomerate according to Pierce in Who Rules America? Disney's chairman and CEO is Michael Eisner. Disney includes three television production companies, Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, and Buena Vista Television. Its feature films division, the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, is headed by Joseph Roth and includes Touchstone, Hollywood, and Caravan pictures. (Roth has since launched an independent entertainment venture, Revolution Studio.) Disney also owns Miramax Films run by Bob and Harvey Weinstein. Pierce asserts that prior to the Eisner-led takeover of the Disney Company in 1984, Disney epitomized “wholesome family entertainment” such as Snow White. Now, however, the company has expanded into “adult” movies like The Crying Game, Priest, and Kids.
In 1995, Disney through its purchase of Capital Cities/ABC acquired ABC television, which has two hundred twenty five affiliated stations in the United States. ABC owns ten local stations in large markets including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston. ABC's cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by Steven Bornstein. Disney also has the controlling share of the Arts and Entertainment Network (A&E) and Lifetime Television. Disney's cable networks, which include the Disney Channel, have more than one hundred million subscribers. The ABC Radio Network has over three thousand four hundred affiliates. Disney's publishing enterprises include W magazine, Hyperion book publishing company, and seven daily newspapers.
Number three on Pierce's megamedia company list, with 1997 revenues almost the equal of Time Warner's, is Viacom Incorporated. Viacom is headed by Sumner Redstone (who, Pierce points out, was born Murray Rothstein). Viacom produces feature films though Paramount Pictures, whose boss is Sherry Lansing. It also produces television programs, and owns thirteen television stations and twelve radio stations. Viacom is the world's largest provider of cable through its Showtime, MTV, and Nickelodeon channels. Nickelodeon, with around sixty-five million subscribers, has the largest share of the four-to-eleven-year-old audience and is gradually, Pierce says, nudging its fare toward the “blatant degeneracy” that is MTV's trademark. MTV, writes Pierce, “pumps its racially-mixed rock and rap videos into... seventy-one countries and is the dominant cultural influence on White teenagers around the world.” Viacom distributes videos through its four thousand Blockbuster stores. Its publishing division includes Simon & Schuster, Scribner, The Free Press, and Pocket Books. Viacom is also involved with satillite broadcasting, theme parks, and video games. In 1999, Viacom acquired CBS television.
The fourth major player among the media giants that Pierce lists, with annual revenues around twelve billion dollars, is Seagram Company Limited. Seagram's president is Edgar Bronfman, Jr. Bronfman, Jr.'s father— Edgar Bronfman, Sr.— is president of the World Jewish Congress. Seagram's Universal Studios produces films and television programs. In May of 1998, Seagram acquired control of PolyGram records and became America 's largest producer of recorded music.
Pierce notes in Who Rules America? that in 1997 films produced by the four largest motion picture companies— Disney, Warner Brothers, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram)— accounted for two-thirds of total box-office receipts.
News Corporation, owned by Australian Rupert Murdoch, is the fifth media conglomerate Pierce cites, with 1997 revenues of eleven billion dollars. Pierce identifies Murdoch as an Australian Gentile. However, writes Pierce, Peter Chernin is the president and CEO of the Fox Group, which includes all of News Corporation's film, television, and publishing operations in the U.S. Within the Fox Group is the Fox Television Network, 20th Century Fox Films, and Fox 2000. Working under Chernin is the president of 20th Century Fox, Laura Ziskin. Pierce quotes Chernin as saying, “I get to control movies seen all over the world.” Peter Roth works under Chernin as president of Fox Entertainment. Chernin also supervises New Corporation's newspaper, the New York Post, and its magazine, TV Guide.
Then there is DreamWorks SKG formed in 1994. DreamWorks is a partnership of Steven Spielberg, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and music industry mogul David Geffen. DreamWorks produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music. Its film, American Beauty, a depiction of the lives of a suburban family and their neighbors, won the Academy Award for best film of 1999.
Pierce contends that most of the television and movie production companies not owned by the largest corporations are under Jewish control. He cites as an example New World Entertainment owned by Ronald Perelman, quoting a media analyst as proclaiming Perelman to be “the premier independent TV program producer in the United States.”
In his Who Rules America? article, Pierce points out that the Jewish presence in television news is strong. The executive producers of ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings and The NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw are Paul Friedman and Neil Shapiro respectively. Until recently, the executive producer of the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather was Al Ortiz. (Ortiz was replaced by Jim Murphy.) The executive producer of the CBS Morning News is Al Berman. (Pierce doesn't mention the morning programs on NBC and ABC.) Rick Kaplan heads the news division at CNN. (Kaplan has since lost this position.)
As for newspapers, the three most prestigious and influential in the country— the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post — are Jewish-owned. The New York Times Company— owned by the Sulzberger family— owns thirty-three other newspapers, including the Boston Globe. Jointly with the Washington Post, the New York Times publishes the International Herald Tribune, the most widely distributed English language daily newspaper in the world. Besides publishing the Wall Street Journal, the nation's largest-circulation newspaper, Dow Jones & Company, whose chairman and CEO is Peter R. Kann, publishes the weekly financial tabloid Barron's. The Newhouse media empire, founded by Samuel Newhouse and now run by his sons, owns twenty-six daily newspapers and the Sunday newspaper supplement Parade. Its magazines include the New Yorker, Vogue, Vanity Fair, and GQ. The newspaper The Village Voice is owned by Leonard Stern.
On to the weekly news magazines. Time, with 4.1 million circulation, is published by a subsidiary of AOL Time Warner, whose CEO is Gerald Levin. Newsweek, with a 3.2 million circulation, is published by the Washington Post Company headed by Katherine Meyer Graham through her son Donald. U.S. News and World Report, with a weekly circulation of 2.3 million, is owned by Mortimer Zuckerman. Zuckerman also owns the Atlantic Monthly magazine and the sixth largest newspaper in the country, the New York Daily News.
Pierce told me that he finds it remarkable that nobody talks about any of this. If these people were all Mormons, Southern Baptists, or— ponder this— Arabs, he said, you can bet your life on people making something out of it. But since it is Jews, nobody brings it up. “Take the Baptists, for instance,” he said in one of his broadcasts. “They launched a boycott of the Disney Corporation because of the raunchy movies its Miramax films division has been turning out, but they refuse to identify either Disney boss Michael Eisner or the Miramax bosses Bob and Harvey Weinstein as Jewish. It's gotten to the point where you can't even call a Jew a Jew. They can call themselves Jews, but you can't even use the name.” 22
“Things happen so fast with all the mergers and personnel changes and so forth,” Pierce told me, “we can't keep up with all of it, plus I don't have a high-powered team of professionals tracking all this stuff down. So I know we are out-of-date in places and we have it wrong in other places. But while we may be off on the details, we are on the mark about the overall picture, and that is that the Jews— a very small minority remember, about two-and-a-half percent of the population in this country— dominate the news and entertainment media. They control what comes into our minds. And that matters— it really does. If any minority controls the flow of information in this country it ought to be an issue, and especially it ought to be an issue when it is the Jews who are the ones in charge. We need to start paying attention to what is going on here, and we aren't. That is a problem.”
The question becomes, what exactly, according to Pierce, do the Jews do with the power he says they have over the media?
Pierce says that some people say that the Jews are simply businessmen like any other, and that they are merely seeking to make a profit. He says that that is true as far as it goes but that while, of course, he is not privy to the Jews' private conversations and dealings, judging by their actions other motives reveal themselves. Pierce says he isn't claiming that there is a vast, tightly organized, joint undertaking that the Jews have going; more, he surmises, it falls into the category of highly committed and like-minded people individually going in similar directions and collaborating when the opportunity arises and supporting one another when they get a chance.
I think it best to let Pierce speak for himself on this matter. Below is a series of excerpts from his writings:
Media propaganda takes a deliberate slant: to make us [whites] feel guilty, to kill our sense of racial consciousness while the Jews keep theirs, to persuade us to give up our arms, and to silence all our dissident voices. Their aim is for us to be racially unconscious, to be ashamed of our nature and our traditions, to be afraid to organize for our common good, afraid of being thought of as racists. The deliberate aim of the Jewish media propaganda is to disarm us morally, to make us rootless and defenseless, and then to destroy us. 23
The control of the opinion-molding media is nearly monolithic. All of the controlled media— television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, motion pictures— speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. Despite the appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no alternative source of facts or ideas accessible to the great mass of people which might allow them to form opinions at odds with those of the media masters. They are presented with a single view of the world— a world in which every voice proclaims the equality of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish "Holocaust" tale, the wickedness of attempting to halt a flood of non-White aliens from pouring across our borders, the danger of permitting citizens to keep and bear arms, the moral equivalence of all sexual orientations, and the desirability of a "pluralistic," cosmopolitan society rather than a homogeneous one. It is a view of the world designed by the media masters to suit their own ends— and the pressure to conform to that view is overwhelming. People adapt their opinions to it, vote in accord with it, and shape their lives to fit it. 24
The Jews' policy is to disarm the White population morally as well as physically by deliberately creating the false impression that Whites are oppressors and victimizers, and non-Whites are our innocent victims. They want us to feel guilty. They want us to feel that it would be immoral for us to resist any of their schemes for more non-White immigration, for so-called diversity and multiculturalism, for more racial mixing and racial intermarriage. 25
Jewish media control determines the foreign policy of the United States and permits Jewish interests rather than American interests to decide questions of war and peace. Without Jewish media control, there would have been no Persian Gulf war, for example, and no continued beating of the drums for another war against Iraq. 26
Well over half of all money the Democratic Party raises for its candidates comes from the tiny Jewish minority in America, a minority that has accumulated a vastly disproportionate share of America 's wealth. A substantial part of the donations from Jews comes from a relatively few rich Jews associated with the entertainment industry in Los Angeles and New York. And of course, there are strings attached to all of this money. It buys appointments to government office. That's one of the reasons that two-thirds of the advisors, speech writers, legislative assistants, lawyers, press secretaries, and so forth around Bill Clinton are Jews. [In our discussions, Pierce pointed out that the entire Clinton administration national defense team— Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and National Security Advisor— was Jewish, and that both of Clinton 's Supreme Court appointees were Jews.]... The Jews who control the news media may criticize him [Clinton] for taking campaign contributions from Chinese gangsters and Indonesian bankers, but they will never criticize him for taking money from the Jewish promoters of gangsta' rap. Never, never, never. 27
Not all the music is gangsta' rap, of course, and not all the films are the sort of obvious filth the Weinstein brothers produce for Michael Eisner's Disney Company— but it is all poison. The whole movement in popular music— which has replaced White music with Black music among young Whites— has been orchestrated by Jews. The use of film to condition White Americans to accept racial mixing and interracial sex and homosexuality has been almost entirely a Jewish operation, just as the use of films earlier to incite hatred against Germany and to portray Jews as the world's most deserving victims was a Jewish operation. 28
The Jew-controlled entertainment media have taken the lead in persuading a whole generation that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable way of life; that there is nothing wrong with White women dating or marrying Black men, or with White men marrying Asian women; that all races are inherently equal in ability and character— except that the character of the White race is suspect because of a history of oppressing other races; and that any effort by Whites at racial self-preservation is reprehensible. 29
The great fad these days, the great media-promoted craze, is “diversity,” and Jews are to be found in every nook and cranny of the “diversity” movement. Jews produce the “diversity” propaganda, they agitate for new “diversity” legislation, and they are always trying to cram diversity down our throats. 30
The idea, of course, is to exterminate us, to wage genocide against us, to leave us no opportunity to be among our own kind, no opportunity to feel a sense of kinship and belonging among our own people, no opportunity to organize and defend ourselves. They want to be the one and only self-conscious group on this earth able to act intelligently in promoting their group interests, and then the world will belong to them. They've been pretty successful so far in their campaign against us. 31
Pierce holds up the Steven Spielberg film, Saving Private Ryan, as a noteworthy example of how the media sell a version of reality to the mass public. Pierce says the film is considered to be a realistic and honest portrayal of World War II. The Spielberg film does show the blood-and- guts aspect of the war more starkly than other films have, he acknowledges, but it is far from honest, at least as Pierce views that war.
"It [ Saving Private Ryan ] propagates the same lies about the Second World War that every film— and I mean every film— made by the Jewish film industry in Hollywood for nearly sixty years has propagated," he said in a radio broadcast he called "Media Myths."
These lies are that the Second World War was a 'necessary' war, that there was no way we could have avoided it, and that it was a 'good' war, that is, a morally justified war. We were forced to fight Germany in order to protect America. We could not have stayed out of the war or fought on the other side, because that would have been immoral. The other side was evil. We fought against evil. By destroying Germany and Hitler we saved the world from slavery and tyranny. Hitler was an evil man, the most evil man who has ever lived, and with his evil SS troops he intended to enslave the world and destroy everything beautiful and good. But we stopped him. We saved America. We saved the world. 32
Pierce says the Spielberg film is just one more iteration of this World War II story. It has been parroted by every politician, television newsman, every school teacher for half a century. Pierce insists that the dogma that World War II preserved our freedom and saved the world— to the extent that even questioning the justification of our involvement in that war is uniformly regarded as “out of bounds”— is evidence of just how strong a hold the Jewish propagandists have over this country. You can have dissenting views on the Spanish-American War and Korea, he says; and go right ahead and say anything you want about Vietnam. But don't let anybody catch you saying anything bad about World War II.
The Second World War didn't preserve America 's freedom, says Pierce. " America 's freedom was never threatened by Germany,” he proclaimed in one of his broadcasts.
Hitler could not even have imagined taking away America 's freedom. His war against America was entirely defensive. We were the aggressors. The U.S. Army invaded Germany and took away Germany 's freedom, not the other way around. There was never the slightest danger that Hitler would invade America. And we certainly didn't save the world. What we did was turn half of the world over to the rule of the communists for nearly fifty years. We didn't even defend America 's economic interests by destroying Germany. The only people whose vital interests were defended by America 's participation in the Second World War were the Jews. 33
We've been sold the idea that the American, British, and Soviet terror bombing, rape, and dismemberment of Germany was the liberation of the German people from the tyrannical rule of Hitler, says Pierce. But the truth of it, he argues, is that millions of white people, including Americans, killed one another in a fratricidal war— racial brother against brother— for the sake of punishing the Germans for throwing the Jews out of their country during the 1930s. The Jews controlled the mass media and politicians even back then, Pierce says, and they were able to persuade us to give precedence to their interests over our own. The Jews hated the Germans and wanted us to destroy Germany for them, and that is what we did. And we still think that what we did was a fine and noble thing, and nobody in public life has the courage to say anything different. This is plainly how Pierce sees it.
A contemporary political example of Jewish manipulation of the opinions of our people to their advantage, Pierce declares, is what has gone on in recent years with Iraq.
Saddam Hussein and Iraq are being held up as a threat to America, a threat to the world, just as Germany was represented as a threat to the world before the Second World War, when in fact Iraq is a threat only to the Jews' plans for the Middle East, and Germany was a threat only to the Jews' plans for controlling Europe [he is referring to communism, which he sees as Jewish-dominated].... Iraq is certainly not a threat to America and never has been, but if the Jews become worried about Saddam Hussein's ability to thwart Israel's further expansion, you can be sure that we will be called on again to save America, to save freedom, and to save the world by "liberating" Iraq. And unfortunately, most Americans will respond to the call. They will believe that they are being patriotic by responding, just as most of the veterans of the Second World War still believe that they were being patriotic in responding to the call to save America from Hitler. 34
In American Dissident Voices programs called "The Fayetteville Murders" and "Fashion for Genocide," Pierce presents another illustration of what he believes to be anti-white media bias. 35 In these broadcasts he contrasts the media coverage of three crimes which took place in Fayetteville, North Carolina. One of the crimes received extensive national news coverage and the other two nobody outside of Fayetteville ever heard about, and he thinks he knows why.
First the case that everybody heard about as Pierce's describes it. Back in 1995, Pierce tells his audience, a white soldier by the name of James Burmeister got “tanked up” and ran into a convicted black drug dealer and his girlfriend in Fayetteville and shot them both to death. Police later found what they called “racist literature” in Burmeister's room. Immediately the case became national news and was a cause célèbre for months: a race killing, how terrible. Bill Clinton held up the crime as an example of persistent white racism. The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith and the Simon Wiesenthal Center condemned it as a hate crime time and again.
In the second Fayetteville case, Pierce recounts, two white women, eighteen-year-old Tracy Lambert and twenty-five-year-old year old Susan Moore, were murdered. Tracy and Susan were on their way home one evening when they were abducted by seven blacks and mixed-blood Hispanics. All of the abductors were prospective members of a gang called the Crips. Authorities later learned that they had been assigned the gang-initiation task of murdering two white people— any two white people. So the seven of them drove the two young women to a vacant lot, made them kneel on the ground, and shot them both in the head as they pleaded for their lives. The crime was reported locally in Fayetteville, but not elsewhere, Pierce says.
Now to the third Fayetteville case. A twenty-five-year-old white soldier named Donald Lange was stomped and kicked by seven black soldiers while, according to reports of witnesses, the attackers were shouting racial epithets. Lange lived, but his brain was destroyed. At the time of Pierce's broadcast, one year after the crime, Lange had not moved or spoken since the beating. Pierce says that the medical prognosis is that he will never regain his faculties. Again, observes Pierce, no news coverage beyond the local area of what happened to Donald Lange. No comment from the President nor any other high official. Silence.
Now imagine, Pierce says, if the races of the perpetrators and victims had been reversed in these last two crimes: two black women are killed by white gang members assigned to kill any two black people; seven white soldiers beat a black soldier into a vegetative state while shouting racial slurs. The gruesome details of the crime would have been on every television screen in America night after night, Pierce contends, and there would have been a parade of politicians and preachers and "hate watchers" lecturing to us about the evils of white racism, just as they did in the Burmeister case and just as they did when three white ex-convicts dragged a black ex-convict to death behind a pick-up truck in Texas— another widely reported case nationally.
But you didn't hear about what happened to Tracy Lambert and Susan Moore, Pierce says, and you didn't hear about Donald Lange, because they don't fit with the current official line, which is that
White people are evil, especially heterosexual White males. They have persecuted non-Whites for hundreds of years. White people really shouldn't complain if non-Whites sometimes strike back at them. That is only justice. When Blacks and Mexicans organize in gangs, it is only to protect themselves from Whites, but when Whites organize, it is to oppress non-Whites. Whites need to be reminded that they are oppressors. That is why White crimes against non-Whites should be emphasized. And if we are to have a happy and prosperous multicultural society with lots of diversity, which is of course a wonderful thing, then Whites have to mix with non-Whites. So we shouldn't give them any news that might make them reluctant to mix. We shouldn't tell them about black crimes against whites, because that might frighten white women away from black men. It might even lead whites to organize against non-whites. In the long run the only sure way to have a peaceful society in which everyone gets along with everyone else is to get rid of the white majority: to replace the present white majority with a non-white majority. A lot of racial mixing and racial intermarriage will help to achieve that, and we should report the news with that aim in mind. 36
If what happened to these three young white victims in Fayetteville received wide coverage, Pierce contends, white people might start asking what the actual numbers of white crimes against minorities are compared to the reverse, and that wouldn't be good at all. 37 Better, says Pierce, that people imagine that whites are committing hate crimes left and right and are the only ones committing them. Better that people assume that any white person who is racially conscious is a low-life “white supremacist” who does terrible things to minorities. Better that whites feel guilty and obligated to cooperate with the program that has been set up for them by those on a higher moral plane than they.
Pierce expresses particular concern about the impact of the mass media on white children. He writes: "By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideals are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by parents, schools, or any other influence." 38
In a broadcast in mid-1998, Pierce used the widely publicized case of a schoolyard shooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas in March of that year to make his point that the popular media are having a harmful effect on children. Thirteen-year-old Mitchell Johnson and another boy had shot and killed four of their schoolmates and a teacher in a shooting spree.
On June 13th of 1998, Pierce told his listeners, President Clinton gave a speech at Portland State University. Prior to the speech, he had visited a high school in Springfield, Oregon, where another school killing-spree had just taken place. According to Pierce, during the Springfield visit Clinton bemoaned the "culture of violence" in America that incites young people to kill and affirmed his determination to bring an end to the epidemic of school violence which has been plaguing the country.
Right after his Portland speech, reports Pierce, Clinton hopped on Air Force One and flew to Los Angeles, where he was the guest of honor at a party at the mansion of record mogul Lew Wasserman. The purpose of the party, says Pierce, was to raise donations for the Democratic party.
Lew Wasserman, Mr. Clinton's host, is the chairman emeritus of MCA, the giant record company which is the principal promoter and distributor of the musical genre known as "gangsta' rap." For those who don't know this, gangsta' rap has lyrics glorifying the life style of Black gangsters and drug bosses. It glorifies street shootings and other aspects of Black criminality. Its rap lyrics are very graphic about murder and rape, which it promotes as being very “cool” and fashionable. Gangsta' rap has been pushed hard by Wasserman and other big media Jews in an effort to get White kids hooked on Black culture and lifestyles. It fits right in with Mr. Clinton's efforts to eliminate White racism by getting Whites to accept Blacks and other aspects of "diversity." 39
Pierce says that according to Mitchell Johnson's English teacher, Debbie Pelley, the young Arkansas killer was really into rap music. Mitchell's favorite rapper, Tupac Shakur, performed on one of the labels distributed by Lew Wasserman's company. (Shakur was himself killed in a drive-by shooting.) Mrs. Pelley told a U.S. Senate committee that Mitchell brought this kind of music to school with him, listening to it on the bus and even trying to listen to it during classes. She testified that she heard Mitchell sing along with lyrics about "coming to school and killing all the kids." Pierce speculates that the impressionable young boy came to think that it would be “cool” to shoot his schoolmates.
Did Clinton see the connection between what Wasserman's company produced and what happened in that schoolyard in Arkansas? Pierce thinks the answer to that question is yes. "I think he was aware of it, but he figured that the general public wasn't and so he could get away with going to Lew Wasserman's party and hugging Lew Wasserman and accepting money from Lew Wasserman just a few hours after telling the parents at Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon that he “felt their pain” over the shootings there and that he was determined to do everything he could to end the culture of violence which led to such shootings. He figured he could get away with it because Lew Wasserman's fellow Jewish media bosses wouldn't call him to account for it. I guess he figured right, didn't he?" 40
As he was putting this broadcast about the Arkansas killings together, Pierce talked to me and Irena about it. He told us he had received a letter from a woman who had said that his language in his radio programs was too harsh and inflammatory. There seemed to be a lot of name-calling and talk about violence, she had written, and this kind of thing was making her uncomfortable. "Let me read you something from what I put together for next week,” Pierce said to us, “and why don't you see if this is the sort of thing she is talking about in her letter and whether you think I'm coming on too strong."
Irena and I said we would do that, and Pierce began reading a section of his upcoming radio program off his computer screen in spirited fashion, just as if he were delivering a real broadcast. He finished reading with a sentence that went "Bill Clinton is a constitutional psychopath, an indictable criminal, and a piece of filth, and the fact that he was elected President of the United States twice is justification for an armed uprising by every patriot." He looked over at the two of us and asked, "Well, what about that? Is that too strong do you think?"
Irena didn't answer, right away, and I guess I took over as spokesman for the two of us. I said that I could see how what he said could put off some people; it could sound hyperbolic and shrill and undercut his credibility. This kind of heightened language could draw attention to itself and obscure some of the key ideas that he is trying to get across, such as that if things keep going as they are, whites are going to be a minority in America in fifty years. I said I thought this kind of talk might especially turn away women, that it might seem indecorous and menacing to them. I said that it did appear to me that he had a problem getting women to relate to his message, and that perhaps these sorts of statements blocked women from hearing what he had to say and set up in their minds an outside-the-boundaries-of-the-community image of him and his ideas and his organization that kept them at a distance.
Pierce's reply was that he had to grab people's attention, and that strong language like this was the way to reach his audience. He said he needs to stir up people, and anyway, this is how he really feels about Clinton.
I said it seemed to me his approach would attract some and turn off others, but that the last thing he said, about how this is how he really felt, might be the most important consideration. Perhaps what was paramount for him was to maintain his own personal integrity and to express himself honestly, and then to just let things fall out as they do.
“No, no, that's not it,” he replied. “I do believe that honesty is the best policy, but what's most important is to get my message across to my audience. I'm willing to do whatever it takes to get that accomplished. I am willing to change how I go about things.”
“Something you might do with regard to people like this woman” I said, “is to show them that you understand where they are having problems with your approach, that you know what's making them uneasy. Let them know you are aware of what they are going through and that you care about what is happening with them. And then tell them why you come at these issues the way you do.”
“I could go that ‘touchy-feely' route, I suppose,” Pierce replied, obviously not too thrilled with my idea. “Here, let me read this part of the talk again.” Pierce then looked back at the computer screen, found his place, and read that same part of his talk again, the part about Clinton being a constitutional psychopath, out loud with the same animation as the first time. He looked very pleased with the ring of his prose. When he finished he said more to himself than to Irena and me: "I can't understand why anybody would be put off by something like that.”
When I later heard the broadcast, I noticed that the Clinton material we had talked about stayed in the script. I forgot to ask him whether he answered the woman's letter, and if he did, what he told her.
A year after the Jonesboro killings, at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado two students killed twelve other students and a teacher, and then committed suicide. The nation was horrified by what happened. In a radio program, Pierce remarked:
You remember, we discussed this phenomenon of schoolyard killings more than a year ago. I predicted then that we would see many more of them, because the social pathology that causes them is becoming worse. In a word, that pathology is alienation. Multiculturalism results in alienation. Always. You destroy a kid's sense of rootedness, his sense of belonging to a natural community; you rob him of his sense of identity, his sense of kinship with the people around him, and you'll have a frustrated kid.... You take away a kid's sense of responsibility to his biological community, and you're likely to have anti-social behavior. If on top of that you destroy his respect for authority, you're practically guaranteed trouble... Finally, we should note the effect of the media on young people. The media blur their sense of reality. If children watch television, play video games, and go to the movies from the time they're able to talk, by the time they're 17 they've seen thousands of people shot to death or otherwise killed— many of whom, with video games, they've “killed” themselves. In past generations, children might see three or four real deaths while growing up, and they would have a much better appreciation for the reality of death— and of life— than the kid raised today does. They wouldn't be quite so likely to confuse game-playing for real life. 41
"The mass media could be a powerful force for good, a powerful force for enlightening and uplifting and guiding our people rather than exploiting them," Pierce asserts. 42 Pierce is especially perplexed by what he views as a "naked emperor" problem— nobody will acknowledge the obvious. A good start as far as Pierce is concerned would be to start naming the problem. It would also help, Pierce argues, if people came to understand the problem.
Most people will believe what they are told to believe by their television. Which means that it is essential that the people who control the mass media, the people who decide what the masses are to be told, must be our people, people with our interests— not people with an entirely different agenda of their own. The mass media could be a powerful force for good, a powerful force for enlightening and uplifting and guiding our people rather than exploiting them.”
You know, a lot of people understand that; they understand the power of the mass media. Our political leaders certainly understand that. Many academics understand it. But they won't buck the Jews. They prefer to go with the flow, to get what advantage they can for themselves, but not to speak out against the way the media have been and are being misused to exploit our people. They are afraid of becoming targets of Jewish hate-propaganda themselves. And they understand the difficulty of convincing the public of the truth after the public already has been convinced of a lie....
And so the politicians and the academics won't point out the lies...and that means that we'll have to do it ourselves, the hard way. We'll have to continue building our own media: media like these American Dissident Voices programs. That's a long and difficult job. And while we're doing that we'll be hearing and seeing a lot more romanticized propaganda from Steven Spielberg and the Weinstein brothers and the rest of the Jewish media establishment. But at least we are reaching more people with the truth this month than we did last month, and we'll reach more still next month.... 43
When Pierce talks about what to do about the media problem he sees, his rhetoric often takes on a Malcolm X-like “by any means necessary” quality. Two examples: "I have decided," Pierce declared in one of his radio programs, "that it is our responsibility to ourselves, to our posterity, to our ancestors, and to the God of Nature which made us what we are, to use any and all means— any and all means— to combat these Jewish media bosses and their collaborators in the government, in the schools, in the churches, and wherever else we find them." 44 And in one of his writings he stated: "Once we have absorbed and understood the fact of Jewish media control, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to break that control. We must shrink from nothing in combating this evil power which has fastened its deadly grip on our people and is injecting its lethal poison into our minds and souls. If we fail to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our race. Let us begin now to acquire knowledge and take action toward this necessary end." 45
But specifically what would Pierce have us do? He is not of a bent to advocate particular policies: this law, that regulation, organizing a buyout or boycott, getting individuals into key slots in organizations and agencies— those kinds of things. There are the violent, revolutionary actions he writes about in his novels, and from being around him I think there is a part of him that would indeed relish something like that happening. Time and again he'd say we need a revolution, but then he would also invariably quickly add that he doesn't believe that the time is ripe for one now. My guess is that Pierce would be uplifted to hear of the assassination of a media mogul or two or three. It should be made clear, however, that I never heard him say anything of that sort. I am just making a supposition based on my sense of him.
Pierce has handled the problem of the media's intrusion into his own life in an individual and non-violent way. He has moved to a remote area of West Virginia where the nearest movie theater is forty miles away. He watches virtually no television. He is a faithful viewer of the NBC evening news, but he told me he watches it by and large because of his work— that is, to inform his radio programs and writings. When I think of how Pierce has organized his life, I am reminded of the letter I discussed earlier that Bob DeMarais wrote to a woman in Florida who had written Pierce. This is the letter Pierce gave to Bob and asked him to draft a reply. In the letter, Bob suggested that the woman
…give up television— 100%, cold turkey— and cut way down on your radio listening or turn it off altogether. Leave what isn't real and go to what is real. Spend time with nature, go for a walk or sit out in your yard, see the ground and the sky, feel your place on this earth, see the trees and plants and birds and animals, feel their life. And feel your own life. Think of how each life grows out of a life before. Think of your ancestors who passed life on to you. Think of your children— or the children you will have— and how they will find mates and continue the process of life reproducing itself. 46
I haven't talked to Pierce about Bob's letter to the listener who wrote, but I imagine that Pierce would find what Bob said to be reasonable advice given the ‘pre-revolutionary' circumstance that exists today. But at the same time, I think Pierce would see this sort of individual coping as a means to an greater end, and that is the time when this woman and others of her race join with one another to seize control of the media as part of a larger effort to bring about a radical and fundamental change in their collective lives.
I obtained the books Pierce had recommended by Kevin MacDonald, the ones he said in his radio broadcast were “very convincing, very thorough.” The MacDonald books were available from my university library, so I wasn't forced to go through a lengthy inter-library loan process as I have with almost all of the books I have reviewed as part of this project. The MacDonald books are three related volumes, the first published in 1994 and the last two in 1998. 47 MacDonald's general topic in the three books is the ethnic conflict between Jews and those he calls “European-derived peoples.” The subtitles of MacDonald's three books give an indication of how MacDonald approaches his subject: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, and An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements.
MacDonald is a university professor and writes in academic style. I have to agree with Pierce's description of the books; with a total of 867 heavily documented pages of tightly-packed print it is “pretty heavy reading.” I'm not recommending these books be included among those taken to the beach this summer. On the other hand, I will only be able to touch on a very small portion of what MacDonald considers in these wide-ranging books, so it may be useful to the reader to check into them. If there is only time to read one of the three, my recommendation is the last one, The Culture of Critique.
As the subtitle of the first volume indicates, MacDonald looks at things from an evolutionary perspective. In this case, however, instead of being concerned with the fate of a species of animals, MacDonald focuses on how one group of human beings— Jews— has struggled to survive and prosper. MacDonald's thesis is that in the pursuit of their interests Jews have consciously compromised the interests of non-Jews. His books chronicle the ways Jews have gone about that and the impact their actions have had on European peoples in general and European-Americans in particular.
What MacDonald finds very intriguing is how, in the last half- century, European-derived people seem to have gone down without a fight, as it were. In fact, many of them have gone so far as to actively participate in furthering the demise of their cultural heritage and way of life and in lowering the level of their own resources, social status, and political power. MacDonald writes, “That an ethnic group would be unconcerned with its own eclipse and domination is certainly not expected by an evolutionist or, indeed, by advocates of social justice whatever their ideology.” 48 Yet it appears that by and large European people are in fact unconcerned about their own eclipse and domination. In all three of his books, and particularly in his last one, The Culture of Critique, MacDonald attempts to identify the ways Jews have been able to foster this anomalous posture among non-Jews.
MacDonald argues that, as an ethnic group, Jews have been exceedingly successful in recent decades:
...Jews have played a decisive role in developing highly influential intellectual and political movements that serve their interests in contemporary societies. There has been an enormous growth in Jewish power and influence in Western societies generally, particularly the United States. Ginsberg (1993) notes that Jewish economic status and cultural influence have increased dramatically since 1960. Shapiro (1992, 116) shows that Jews are overrepresented by at least a factor of nine on indexes of wealth, but that this is a conservative estimate, because much Jewish wealth is in real estate, which is difficult to determine and easy to hide. While constituting approximately 2.4 percent of the population of the United States, Jews represent half of the top one hundred Wall Street executives and about 40 percent of admissions to Ivy League colleges. Lipset and Raab (1995) note that Jews contribute between one-quarter and one-third of all political contributions in the United States, including one-half of Democratic Party contributions and one-fourth of Republican contributions. The general message of Goldberg's (1996) book Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment is that American Judaism is well organized and lavishly funded. It has achieved a great deal of power, and it has been successful in achieving its interests. 49
How did the Jews go about getting to such a position of prominence? It is clear that MacDonald thinks that intelligence, industry, conscientiousness, and intragroup support have had a great deal to do with their economic success. But what is especially germane here is how MacDonald sees Jews operating at the intellectual and cultural levels in support of their interests. According to MacDonald, in these realms the Jews have had one major aim with regard to the United States: that America not be dominated by a self-conscious, committed, and united European-derived majority. 50 Most of what the Jews have done intellectually and socially can be understood as a means to that end, says MacDonald. Whatever the stated reasons for a particular Jewish-inspired idea or activity, largely or wholly its purpose is to dilute European American power— so concludes MacDonald.
Why would the Jews pursue this goal? From MacDonald's writings, I discern two primary reasons. The first grows out of his evolutionist perspective. MacDonald sees competition for a bigger slice of the pie— or as he puts it, “intergroup competition for resources”— to be inherent in the nature of things. Groups of people look out for their own well-being and seek their own advantage; that is the way it goes. Like it or not, that is the game on the table. The second reason— and MacDonald gives a great deal of weight to this one— grows out of Jews' experience in Europe when white racial consciousness and unchecked anti-Semitism took hold in Germany under Hitler. "Never let that kind of thing happen again" seems to be the lesson Jews have taken away from that painful period in their history.
Now to some of the strategies MacDonald cites as having contributed to the achievement of the Jews' goal of preventing the dominance of European- derived people in America.
First, MacDonald asserts, Jewish writers and organizations have played up one of the two major aspects of the American political and cultural heritage while playing down the other one. MacDonald says that there are two main strands in the American story, as it were. One is an enlightenment-inspired commitment to individual rights and individual autonomy, and the other is a republican strand emphasizing a cohesive and socially homogeneous society and the importance of Anglo-Saxon ethnicity in the development and preservation of the American identity. 51 Jewish writers and activists, MacDonald notes, tend to stress the first of these two strands. They emphasize civil liberties and individual freedom and choice. They applaud the democratic process in contrast to republican forms and Euro-American traditions. They emphasize the past sins of the dominant American culture and the limitations in its way of life. Why all this is important is that to the extent that non-Jews come to value personal independence and self-determination and at the same time devalue or ignore their ancestral and national roots and any loyalties and obligations they engender, it will cut them off from their past and extinguish any sense of solidarity with others who share their ethnic heritage. In a word, white Americans will be splintered.
There is also the attack on the Christian religion as a way to kick the props from under Gentiles. MacDonald quotes the Jewish intellectual Norman Podhoretz as writing that “it is in fact the case that Jewish-dominated organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have ridiculed Christian religious beliefs, [and] attempted to undermine the public strength of Christianity....” 52 Jews have effectively painted fundamentalist Christians who attempt to influence educational and other public policy or oppose what they consider to be the moral bankruptcy of certain forms of mass entertainment as backward and a threat to the society. Religion and spirituality hold people together and give them a common direction. If you can make them cynical about their religious orientation and secularize them, you can pull them apart from one another.
And then there is the denigration of non-cosmopolitan European- American ways of life. MacDonald writes that a prominent theme of Jewish New York intellectuals and Jewish scholars in the social sciences has been the intellectual and moral inferiority of traditional American culture, particularly rural American culture.” 53 According to MacDonald, what is important is not so much that Jews come to believe negative things about non-Jews, but rather that non-Jews come to believe negative things about themselves. And that is what has happened, says MacDonald. European Americans have come to look down upon their rural brethren and, even more than that, rural ways and living with connection to the land in general. To disconnect European-Americans from the earth and a pattern of life that is literally grounded is to cut off their roots.
MacDonald sees Freudian psychoanalysis as a Jewish-dominated intellectual movement and a central element in what he calls “this war on Gentile cultural supports." In particular, MacDonald claims, psychoanalysis pathologizes childhood and undercuts the belief in what he calls high- investment parenting, that is to say, authoritative, non-permissive approaches to raising children. 54 MacDonald doesn't get into it in his book, but as I was reading this material I wondered whether he might also view the more indulgent parenting techniques popularized in the 1950s and ‘60s by pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock in the same light. I do know that Pierce is disgusted with the ways white parents have given over their time-honored— he would call it Aryan— discipline-and-responsibility- centered way of bringing up children. Also, beyond the particular issue of childraising, I came away from MacDonald's books with the impression that he sees Jewish prominence in the therapeutic professions as having made Gentiles more distrustful of their basic attitudes, impulses, and patterns of conduct. I think MacDonald believes the "psychologization" of Gentiles has induced them to introspect and second-guess themselves, and that this takes away some of their edge, their forcefulness, their fierceness, their ability to connect instinct and action. It has served to soften them.
Then there is the prominence of Jews in promoting black civil rights and the cause of racial integration. MacDonald writes:
Jews have been instrumental in organizing African Americans as a political force that served Jewish interests in diluting the political and cultural hegemony [dominance] of non-Jewish European Americans. Jews played a very prominent role in organizing blacks beginning with the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909 and, despite increasing black anti-Semitism, continuing into the present...
Cruse observes that Jewish organizations view Anglo- Saxon (read Caucasian) nationalism as their greatest potential threat and they have tended to support pro-black integration policies for blacks in America, presumably because such policies dilute Caucasian power and lessen the possibility of a cohesive, nationalist anti-Semitic Caucasian majority. At the same time, Jewish organizations have opposed a black nationalist position while pursuing an anti-assimilationist, nationalist group strategy for their own group. 55
MacDonald points out that Jews have promoted liberal immigration policies as a mechanism of ensuring that the United States would be a pluralistic rather than a unitary, homogeneous nation. 56 The more non- whites who come into the United States, the fewer whites there will be as a total percentage of the population. Also, the greater the number of people whose culture differs from the European culture, the less European in character America becomes. MacDonald notes the strong backing of the Jews for the landmark 1965 immigration law which cut the flow of immigrants from Europe and dramatically increased the flow from Asia and Latin America. 57 Writes MacDonald: "The 1965 law is having the effect that it seems reasonable to suppose had been intended by its Jewish advocates all along. The census Bureau projects that by the year 2050, European-derived peoples will be a minority in this country." 58
MacDonald underscores that the problem of immigration of non-European peoples is not confined to the United States. He notes that while it is "a severe and increasingly contentious problem" in the entire Western world, only European-derived peoples have opened their doors to the other peoples of the world and now stand in danger of losing control of territory occupied for hundreds of years.” 59
And then there is multiculturalism. MacDonald contends that the multiculturalist ideology has been promoted by Jewish intellectuals to rationalize minority group ethnocentrism while at the same time delegitimize and pathologize European ethnocentrism. Multiculturalism has caught hold with all segments of the population, including those from European backgrounds. Multiculturalism promotes the idea that European- derived people are morally obligated to attend to the welfare of minority groups and to serve the interests of minority groups, even if it is done at the cost of their own interests. However, multiculturalism does not stress the reverse, that is to say, it does not implore other groups to attend to and serve the interests of European-derived peoples.
MacDonald points out the harsh condemnation— including from the many European-derived people who have accepted the tenets of multiculturalism— of any indication that those of European background might develop a cohesive group identity and strategy in reaction to the group identities and strategies of other groups. 60 Thus there is a double standard: it is all right for minorities to come together to promote their interests— for there to be black, Hispanic, and Jewish organizations, black, Hispanic, and Jewish leadership, a black, Hispanic, and Jewish agenda— but it is not all right for European-Americans to do the same thing. “I have noted," MacDonald writes, "that a fundamental agenda [of the multiculturalists] has been to make the European-derived peoples of the United States view concern with their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology.” 61 In another place, MacDonald puts it this way: "At present the interests of non-European-derived peoples to expand demographically and politically in the United States are widely perceived as a moral imperative, whereas the attempts of European-derived peoples to retain demographic, political, and cultural control is represented as racist, immoral, and an indication of psychiatric disorder. From the perspective of these European-derived peoples, the prevailing ethnic morality is altruistic and self-sacrificial." 62
While the rug is being pulled out from under the European majority, Jews, in contrast, have long been painted in the most positive light possible. “[A] consistent theme of Jewish intellectual activity since the Enlightenment," writes MacDonald, "has been to cast Jewish ethnic interests and Judaism itself as embodying a unique and irreplaceable moral vision...." 63 MacDonald states: "There is a great deal of consensus on broad Jewish issues, particularly in the areas of Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, church-state separation, abortion rights, and civil liberties.” 64 According to MacDonald, European-derived peoples have come to accept that Jews and whatever they favor is the right side, the side to be on, the side to support, no question about it; and that to be against Jews or to criticize them is to be on the wrong side, no question about that either.
MacDonald says that if the present trends continue, the white population (not including Jews) will likely suffer a decline in economic and social status over the next several generations. 65 However, that is if present trends continue; MacDonald thinks they probably will not continue. European-Americans are likely, MacDonald believes, to eventually join together and pursue their interests in the same way other ethnic groups do now. He writes:
The viability of a morality of self-sacrifice is especially problematic in the context of a multicultural society in which everyone is conscious of group membership and there is between-group competition for resources.... I rather doubt that such altruism will continue if there are obvious signs that the status and political power of European-derived groups is decreasing while the power of other groups increases. The prediction... is that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient in a multicultural society, the European-derived peoples of the United States will become increasingly unified; among these peoples, contemporary divisive influences, such as issues related to gender and sexual orientation, social class differences, or religious differences, will be increasingly perceived as unimportant. Eventually these groups will develop a united front and a collectivist political orientation vis-à-vis the other ethnic groups. 66
Clearly, European ethnic and political unity and collective action is something Pierce would like to see happen and in his own way is attempting to foster. We are left with two big questions about this possibility, however. The first is whether it would be a good turn of events if it happened. Some hold that it would balkanize America, i.e., turn America into a series of separate and competing enclaves and split the fabric of this country. Others, Pierce included, believe it would be a self- preserving and self-affirming response of European-Americans to their current circumstance. The second question, of course, is whether, good thing or bad thing, European-American ethnic allegiance and identity politics will in fact emerge somewhere up the line. MacDonald is of mind to think that it will. If Pierce is right in his analysis, however, there is one very powerful force within this society in particular, the mass media, which is attempting to ensure that it won't.
Previous Chapter | Index | Next Chapter
Brought to you exclusively by SolarGeneral.com
Powered by:
1st-amendment.net