Source: This article was originally published in National Vanguard Magazine,
PO Box 330, Hillsboro, WV 24946 USA.
The ADL: The drive to outlaw free speech and thought
Question: What does the current media campaign to outlaw the private ownership of semiautomatic weapons by U.S. citizens have to do with the rapidly growing corpus of legislation dealing with “hate crimes”?
Answer: Success of the first is necessary to insure compliance with the second, and both are the creatures of a quasi-governmental secret-police agency of whose existence most Americans are unaware.
There is underway in America a vast, well-oiled, heavily financed campaign to limit sharply the rights of Americans under the First Amendment to their Constitution and to eliminate altogether their rights under the Second Amendment. It already has scored notable successes in rolling back the most basic American freedoms. It is gearing up now for a drive to achieve total victory in this decade.
The principal instrument in this campaign is a secret-police agency more sinister, more cunning, and infinitely more malevolent than the Soviet Committee for State Security — the KGB — ever was. Its initials are ADL.Those initials stand for Anti-Defamation League, an innocuous-sounding name wholly out of keeping with the character of the organization.
To understand its significance we must look into its origins. The ADL is the action arm of B’nai B’rith, the international Jewish secret society, whose Hebrew name means in English “Sons of the Covenant.” The “covenant” referred to is the one supposedly entered into between the ancient Hebrews and their tribal deity Yahweh more than 3,000 years ago.
Its terms are spelled out in Deuteronomy, the fifth book of Moses. The Jews pledged their allegiance to Yahweh in return for his promise to take them as his “chosen people” and to give them dominion over all the lands and the other peoples of the earth: “Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours.” (Deut. 11: 24) B’nai B’rith sees as its task the taking of all necessary measures for this promise to be fulfilled.
The ADL itself was organized in the United States as a subdivision of B’nai B’rith in 1913, and its ostensible purpose was to counter the “defamation” of Jews, whose public image was even worse then than now. The ADL went about its work in characteristically heavy-handed fashion, bullying and intimidating those who said or published anything the organization considered incompatible with Jewish interests, and lobbying legislators and other public officials to obtain legislation or rulings which would advance Jewish aims. If a prominent businessman, educator, or politician made a public statement the Jews did not like, the ADL would attempt to persuade him to retract it, hinting at economic or political reprisals if he refused. If intimidation failed, the ADL often would turn to defamation, feeding derogatory statements about the target to newspapers under Jewish control or friendly to Jewish interests until he was thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the public.
Typical of ADL efforts in the period prior to the Second World War was its attempt to ban a book, Conquest of a Continent, by Madison Grant, the noted naturalist and president of the New York Zoological Society. The book was published in 1933 by Charles Scribner’s Sons and bore an enthusiastic introduction by Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn, the most prominent American paleontologist of his day. In the book Grant outlined the racial history of North America and argued for the reform of immigration laws in order to keep America primarily Northern European in its racial composition.
Jews are hardly mentioned in the book, and in no way can it be considered a “defamation” of them. Jewish policy then as now, however, was to change the European racial character of the United States by cutting off the flow of immigrants (other than Jews) from Europe and increasing the flow from the non-White world.
Consequently the ADL mounted a campaign with publishers, asking them not to review the book or mention it in any way in their own publications, and with booksellers, asking them not to handle the book. A form letter dated December 13, 1933, mailed from the national headquarters of the ADL (then in Chicago), and signed by the then-director of the organization, Richard E. Gutstadt, notified publishers that Grant’s book “is extremely antagonistic to Jewish interests” and added: “We are interested in stifling the sale of this book.”
Grant’s book is only one of many which received the same attention from the ADL. As time passed the organization’s censorship activity became more sophisticated and more effective. Defamation of offending authors, speakers, or public officials became a more often used weapon. In line with this defamation activity the ADL’s undercover investigative capabilities were greatly expanded. A network of unpaid Jewish agents all across the country reported to ADL headquarters, where dossiers were built up on tens of thousands of American citizens. Information from these dossiers, which might contain everything from basic biographical and employment data to rumors about marital difficulties or drinking problems, was used to fabricate defamatory news releases on anyone the ADL wanted to discredit.
By the early 1940s the ADL had strengthened its position as an information source for the news media — the result in part of the increased number of Jews in controlling positions in the media. It also had established informal relationships with a number of local, state, and Federal police departments. It often was the case that when the Federal Bureau of Investigation was interested in the affairs of a person involved in patriotic or “right wing” activity, the ADL already would have a dossier on him as someone actually or potentially hostile to Jewish interests and would happily share the dossier with the FBI. Sometimes the ADL would initiate the contact: if its informants had provided information to headquarters suggesting that an alleged “anti-Semite” might not have paid enough income tax or might have an unregistered firearm hidden in his attic, a tip would be given to the appropriate police agency.
In the past half-century the ADL’s links with the media and with law-enforcement agencies have grown enormously. Today virtually all the controlled news media routinely print anything given to them by the ADL, as if it had come over the Associated Press wire, and they routinely go to the ADL for commentary whenever any news story is being prepared on a person known to oppose Jewish policies.
Likewise, the ADL has become the standard source to which government investigative agencies turn whenever their target is such a person. In the latter case the flow of information goes in both directions: not only does the ADL have the opportunity to peek into the government’s confidential investigative files, but its agents are even invited to accompany the FBI when raids or arrests are being made on a target of interest to it.
The biggest development for the ADL in the postwar period came as a result of the Jews’ land-grab in the Middle East and the formation of the state of Israel. The coordinating center for B’nai B’rith’s activities moved from New York to Jerusalem. Investigating, defaming, and intimidating Americans who did not agree with the Israel-first foreign policy of the U.S. government became one of the ADL’s chief concerns. Patriots who protested Washington’s failure to take reprisals in 1967 when the Israelis deliberately rocketed, strafed, and torpedoed the USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans and wounding 171 others, were denounced as “anti-Semites” by the ADL. In 1974, when NATIONAL VANGUARD editor William Pierce sued U.S. Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger in an effort to halt the flow of U.S. weapons and military supplies to Israel, the ADL jumped into the suit on the side of the government as an amicus curiae.
As early as 1971, in sworn testimony in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a top B’nai B’rith official, Saul Joftes, formerly director general of the B’nai B’rith’s Office of International Affairs, admitted that B’nai B’rith “engages in international politics and more often than not does the bidding of the government of Israel. Its leaders make frequent trips to Israel for indoctrination and instructions.” The issue at stake in the court case was whether or not B’nai B’rith’s U.S. affiliate — and the ADL — should be prosecuted for failing to register as agents of a foreign power under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.
The fix was in, however; by the 1970s the ADL and B’nai B’rith had become “untouchables.” Not only did they escape prosecution, they continued to operate as tax-exempt “religious and charitable” organizations.
Silencing and discrediting Americans who disapproved of U.S. taxpayers’ money being used to support Israel’s wars of expansion in the Middle East was not the only ADL activity in the postwar period. The organization worked hard and effectively to advance other Jewish goals: the opponents of increased non-White immigration were attacked, aid was given to the pulling down of the barriers against racial mixing, new restrictions on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms were supported. The ADL played a significant role in every facet of B’nai B’rith’s program to demoralize, dilute, disorganize, and disarm White Americans — all in the name of the fight against “bigotry.”
When, during the madness of the 1960s, the Jews finally succeeded in pushing through a new immigration law designed to bring more non-Whites into the United States, the ADL crowed about its success. The November 1965 issue of the ADL Bulletin, the group’s internal publication, carried an article by the director of the ADL’s law department, Sol Rabkin, who was present at the signing of the new law by President Lyndon Johnson. (Also present at the signing was Benjamin R. Epstein, then the national director of the ADL.) Under the heading “The restrictive national origins quota system is finally abolished — after a forty year fight,” Rabkin boasted: “The Anti-Defamation League is proud of the educational role it played in helping to bring this about.”
The same issue of the ADL Bulletin had a notice of the appointment of the director of the ADL’s Washington office, Herman Edelsberg, to the government post of executive director of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where he could work more effectively to force the racial mixing of employees in shops and offices all across America. In this regard it is interesting to note that the ADL actually has two “equal opportunity” programs. One — that headed by Mr. Edelsberg in 1965 and by others since then — is to give Blacks and other minorities precedence over Whites in hiring and promotion for blue-collar and clerical employment. The other is to oppose Black demands for precedence in admissions to law schools and medical schools, and for hiring and promotion in certain professional occupations where Jews are heavily over-represented.
By the mid-1970s B’nai B’rith had had very substantial success in virtually every phase of its campaign to undermine White society in America. It still was moving aggressively on a dozen fronts: introducing resolutions to require “Holocaust” indoctrination for Gentile children in the public schools; demanding the rewriting of school textbooks and the reworking of school curricula to make them appropriately “multi-cultural” and eliminate what the ADL complained was the “principally white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon view of America” presented by older texts and curricula; pushing Christian churches, both Protestant and Catholic, to make even further changes in their doctrines, so that their teachings about Jews would consist of nothing but the most fulsome praise; lobbying the government to punish American companies refusing to trade with Israel; asking for more restrictive anti-gun laws; etc.
These ongoing programs were only a part of the ADL’s activity, however. The late 1970s saw a slowing of the frantic social change which had kept America in turmoil for nearly two decades. Much of that turmoil had been planned and instigated by B’nai B’rith. Even before the beginning of the 1980s and the relative stasis of the Reagan era, B’nai B’rith was planning new programs to head off any White backlash which might undo the changes it had wrought in American society. A new emphasis on secret-police activity characterized these programs.
At an ADL banquet in Palm Beach, Florida, early in 1975, as reported in the March 1975 issue of the ADL Bulletin, ADL Chairman Seymour Graubard boasted that the “ADL, to the limits of its financial ability, is expanding its intelligence operation . . .”
The building of dossiers on the opponents and potential opponents of the Jews’ plan for America was no longer enough, however. During times of economic prosperity the old tactics of defamation and intimidation might be sufficient to keep the goyim in line, but a severe and prolonged economic decline could stiffen the spines of White Americans to the point where they no longer would be frightened into silence by the ADL’s power of the smear. It became prudent, in the view of the leaders of B’nai B’rith, to enlist the police powers of government in order to silence and disarm their critics before any substantial backlash developed. To this end the ADL launched a new legislative lobbying campaign of ominous import.
The ADL’s lawyers drew up a series of “model statutes” to be introduced by the organization’s agents into the Congress and state legislatures. Some of these ADL-designed statutes are aimed at a more rapid phasing-out of citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms. The ADL always has been a leading advocate of gun control — much more so than the public has realized, because often while other gun-control organizations are out front holding press conferences and making headlines, it is the ADL pulling the strings for them behind the scenes. Beginning in the 1980s, however, there was a new urgency to the organization’s efforts. The rationale used by the ADL now is that new, sweeping anti-gun laws are needed to protect law-abiding citizens from “right-wing terrorism.” The ADL Bulletin has warned that “arms and stores of ammunition are being collected in uncounted numbers, and extremists have made clear that they are ready to use them.” To back up this claim that armed White “extremists” are a growing menace the ADL has fed a steady stream of alarmist reports to the controlled news media. An excellent illustration of the way in which the ADL has carried on its anti-gun campaign is provided by its “model anti-paramilitary training statute,” designed to prevent White patriots from acquiring or providing instruction in the martial arts.
The organization unveiled this model statute in 1980. By November 1981 the ADL Bulletin was able to boast that ADL agents had succeeded in having bills based on the statute enacted into law by the legislatures of California, Connecticut, and North Carolina. By early 1987 the number of states which had knuckled under to ADL pressure had grown to 14. The ADL Bulletin for March 1987 reported on its success in having one major newspaper serve as an ADL mouthpiece in this regard: “In the Atlanta Constitution, ADL’s model anti-paramilitary training statute won editorial words of praise while the newspaper suggested that Georgia should pass such a law.
The article reported that ADL has spotted secret camps from Alabama to California and from Connecticut to Texas which have “a mix of vitriol and violence (that) poses a danger to all peace-loving Americans but particularly to minorities. There ought to be a law against paramilitary camps of this kind — and in 14 states there is,” said the editorial.<
The piece went on to praise the fact that while holding pathological hatemongers at bay, the ADL model aims to satisfy such constitutional considerations as the rights of free speech and free association.
“The ADL’s steamroller had picked up considerable speed by 1987, and just three months later the June 1987 issue of the ADL Bulletin bragged: “Now there are 18. The number of states adopting anti-paramilitary training statutes based on ADL’s model legislation has reached 18 with Georgia, West Virginia, Virginia, and Idaho enacting such laws in recent months.”
In a letter to Howard Ross, director of ADL’s Western Pennsylvania-West Virginia Regional Office, West Virginia’s Governor Arch A. Moore, Jr., expressed his appreciation for the League’s cooperation in moving the legislation to passage.
“The ADL also worked diligently to subvert the law-enforcement establishment and to put as many individual law-enforcement officers into its pockets as possible. For the chiefs of big-city police departments, expense-paid “fact finding” trips to Israel could be arranged. For others there were ADL-sponsored “training seminars,” where politically ambitious police officials could be told of the advantages to be had by directing more of their energies and resources to the repression of “White extremists.”
For example, the October 1987 issue of the ADL Bulletin reported: “Some 200 law-enforcement officers ranging from FBI agents to chiefs of police, sheriffs, and attorneys general in the 13 Western states from California to Wyoming attended a special seminar on combatting terrorism, arranged by Betsy Rosenthal, ADL’s Western Civil Rights area director, and Harvey B. Schechter, Western States area director.
The Los Angeles Police Academy was the scene of the all-day session. The keynote speakers were Arieh Ivtsan, Israel’s Ambassador to Liberia and immediate past commissioner of the Israeli National Police Force, and Irwin Suall, director of ADL’s Civil Rights Division Fact Finding Department.
Packets distributed to the attendees included ADL’s reports on “Extremism Targets the Prisons” and “Propaganda of the Deed,” the League’s Security Handbook and a list of recent publications on extremism and extremist groups with an ADL-prepared synopsis. “By sponsoring such seminars the ADL has reinforced its image as a quasi-governmental agency, to which genuine law-enforcement agencies are justified in turning for advice and information. Perhaps most important, policemen and police agencies accustomed to thinking of their responsibility as combatting drug dealers, robbers, rapists, burglars, automobile thieves, murderers, and the like are informed that there is a new type of criminal about which they should be even more concerned: the “extremist.”
The ADL, of course, defines the term for them and tells them who fits the definition.
Despite the ADL’s pretense of concern for “Constitutional considerations,” its model anti-paramilitary training law, in fact, totally disregards the rights of free speech and free association. It prohibits certain types of speech, if that speech is involved in training or instruction in the martial arts, and it prohibits association for the purpose of hearing such speech. And the ADL campaign to push its model law through all of the state legislatures is based on fraud, deceit, and political corruption.
The way it worked in West Virginia provides a good illustration. There has not been any paramilitary training in that state — at least, not within the memory of any news reporters or law-enforcement people there spoken to by this writer: no reason, in other words, for even the most timid of West Virginia’s minority citizens (barely two percent of the state’s population) to feel threatened by paramilitary activity — and so not a very good prospect for the ADL’s anti-paramilitary training law. Then, in mid-1985, William Pierce, editor of this magazine and author (using his nom de plume Andrew Macdonald) of The Turner Diaries, a novel about urban guerrilla warfare and White revolution, left his home of 18 years in the Washington, D.C., area and resettled himself on a mountainside in a remote, wilderness area of West Virginia, the better to commune with his God and write the words which need to be written about this troubled era.
That was all the ADL needed to launch its campaign in the state. The only newspaper printed in West Virginia which is circulated statewide is the Charleston Gazette, and it is entirely at the disposal of the ADL. Early in 1986 it carried the first of a series of ADL-sponsored scare stories about Dr. Pierce’s move to the state. He had not come to West Virginia to meditate and to write, the stories claimed, but to build a terrorist training camp. The 360 acres of forested mountain land he had bought were regularly referred to as “a compound.” It was surrounded by an electrified fence patrolled by armed men. One of the buildings on the land was located directly over a “large complex of limestone caverns reported to be heavily stocked with weapons.” It was believed that missile silos were being dug into the mountainside. Supporting these alarmist stories was the local sheriff, who happily provided newsmen with confirmation about the electrified fence, the weapons-filled caves, and the armed men. The “compound,” he asserted, was adjacent to one of the largest wilderness areas in the eastern United States, and he was quite worried about any run-in with Dr. Pierce or his associates which might involve “gunplay.”
The ADL then trotted the sheriff over to the state legislature in Charleston to tell the same story to the state’s lawmakers. West Virginia politics is probably not much more corrupt than that of other states, such as Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. But that’s bad enough, and the ADL was able to enlist the state’s attorney general, Charlie Brown, and its governor, Arch Moore, as well as the aforementioned sheriff, in its campaign to protect the citizens of West Virginia from Dr. Pierce and his terrorist training camp. The attorney general spoke at meetings and seminars organized by the ADL to alert the public to the danger. And as usual the Jewish group rounded up a number of non-Jewish groups to front for it: the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the West Virginia Education Association, a board of Presbyterian preachers, the Rainbow Coalition, and several others. The ADL named its collection of front groups “Citizens for Passage of an Unlawful Paramilitary Training Act” and, operating it like a ventriloquist’s dummy, called for the enactment of its model statute in the name of “the citizens of West Virginia.”
There was, of course, not a shred of truth in the stories about electrified fences, weapons-filled caves, missile silos, or training camps of any sort, terrorist or otherwise. But the news media being what they are, and politics being what it is, there were no news stories to contradict those of the Charleston Gazette, and no member of the state legislature saw fit to investigate the matter himself, even to the extent of taking a personal look at the alleged terrorist training camp or giving Dr. Pierce a telephone call to ask a few questions. The ADL’s word on the matter was accepted, and the ADL’s bill was enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor.
Sneaking laws against paramilitary training through state legislatures is only one facet of the ADL’s effort to disarm America’s citizens, but it is an important facet because it reveals the political motive behind the ADL’s anti-gun drive. The ADL is not concerned about drug addicts with “Saturday night specials,” but it is very much concerned about armed patriots who might not approve of the Jewish plan for America. The organization has been active recently in fanning the hysteria over “assault” rifles and in instigating the passage of laws at the state and local levels to prohibit their ownership.
Even more dangerous than the ADL’s anti-gun and anti-paramilitary activities, however, is its campaign to establish a new category of crime: so-called “hate crime.” Defined roughly, it is any act or speech motivated by hostile feelings based on race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Thus, if you are a White man, and you punch a Black man in the nose because you do not like Blacks as a general rule, it is not simply an assault; it is a “hate crime,” and if you are convicted of it in a jurisdiction where the ADL has succeeded in having its model “ethnic intimidation” bill enacted into law, you will be sent to prison for three times as long as if you’d punched your mother-in-law instead (assuming she’s White).
A “hate crime” also occurs if you are a White person who is generally well disposed toward Blacks, but you become engaged in a shouting match with one of them — perhaps a dispute over a parking space — and in the heat of the fray call him a “Black bastard.” That, you see, is “ethnic intimidation,” even if no blows are exchanged, and the ADL would like to send you to the state penitentiary for five years for it. You also commit a “hate crime” if you shout “nigger!” at a Black driver who cuts you off on the highway.
The ADL has been promoting “hate crime” laws for more than a decade. The January 1981 issue of the ADL Bulletin reported: “A joint New York State/ADL Committee on Public Policy has endorsed legislation. . . which would make graffitti and harassment based on religion, ethnicity, and race an offense under Civil Rights statutes [emphasis added]. The New Jersey regional office [of the ADL] is working with both the State Police and the County Prosecutor’s Association. At ADL’s initiative an Ethnic Terrorism Bill, which would change the act of anti-Semitic or racial vandalism from a misdemeanor to a third-degree crime has been introduced in the New Jersey Legislature.”Less than a year later, in November 1981, the ADL Bulletin was able to boast: “Gov. Brendan Byrne of New Jersey signed into law an ethnic terrorism bill that makes racial or religious vandalism a crime punishable by three to five years in prison and a fine of up to $7,500.
ADL’s regional board called for such legislation in 1979. . . and ADL was in the forefront of the two-year effort to win passage of the bill. “Much of the early ADL propaganda in favor of “hate crime” legislation attempted to cloak the ADL’s true aim behind a pretended concern for protecting places of worship from “religious vandalism.” Thus the February 1982 issue of the ADL Bulletin reported: “ADL has developed a model religious vandalism law to provide those states that do not have such legislation with a single, comprehensive, constitutionally sound approach to this problem.
The model statute’s first and second sections create penalties for vandalism against houses of worship, cemeteries, schools and community centers, and also for committing certain crimes “by reason of the race, color, religion or national origin of another person” [emphasis added].”
A year later, in February 1983, the ADL Bulletin was able to claim substantial progress at the state level: “Mr. Perlmutter [then the ADL's national director] expressed the hope that other states would follow the lead of the 12 thus far — Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Washington — which have enacted laws imposing stiffer penalties for persons convicted of religious or racial vandalism or other acts motivated by bigotry [emphasis added].”
At that time the ADL, however, was still far short of its ultimate legislative goal: a Federal law prohibiting any expression of hostility toward, or any criticism of, Jews or other non-Whites by Whites. In the mid-1980s it shifted the emphasis of its campaign from the state to the national level. Its strategy was two-pronged: first, to condition legislators and publicists and then the general public to accept the concept of “hate crime” as a distinct, new category of crime; and second, to persuade the American people that a new body of legislation is needed to protect them from such crime — needed so urgently, in fact, that they should be willing to sacrifice the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution in order to be safe from a dangerous new breed of “hate criminals.”
To implement the first prong of that strategy the ADL formulated another of its “model statutes”: a hate-crimes statistics reporting statute. Lobbying intensely, the ADL used its media outlets to publicize its own statistics, which not surprisingly showed a sharp rise in “hate crimes” throughout the latter half of the decade. A Federal law was needed, the ADL claimed, to track such crime. In January 1990 the organization reported that “hate crimes” had reached an all-time high during 1989. Leading the list were 1,432 “anti-Semitic incidents” reported by its agents around the country, ranging from swastikas daubed on driveways to arson. In April 1990 the Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the desired law. The new Hate Crimes Statistics Act requires the Justice Department to gather the statistics that the ADL formerly had gathered. All incidents in which hatred or prejudice based on race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation is alleged to be a motive will henceforth be subject to special Federal scrutiny and record keeping. If a homosexual in Norfolk, Virginia, makes a pass at a sailor and has his teeth knocked out for his trouble, the Justice Department in Washington wants to know all about it. If a Vietnamese “refugee” in Los Angeles finds a “gooks go home” message chalked on the windshield of his car, the FBI will investigate. It’s the law now.
One might wonder why the ADL went to so much trouble to persuade the Federal government to duplicate one of the Jewish group’s functions. The reason, of course, is not that more crime statistics are needed by anyone, least of all by the ADL; it is that now the Federal government has officially recognized the ADL’s definition of a new category of crime. Now it will be the government, not just some Jewish group with a strange name, investigating and publicizing every hostile word or act based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. That is the first step toward persuading the Congress to enact, and the public to accept, new laws.
There will continue to be a screen of words — “terrorism,” “religious vandalism,” and “hate, hate, hate” — thrown up to disguise the true goals of those pushing for Federal “hate crime” legislation. As a result of this obfuscation the impression in many minds will be that the purpose of such legislation is merely to penalize those who paint swastikas on Jewish tombstones or set fire to synagogues. Who could object to a law against that? What the ADL really has in mind is revealed by an incident which occurred at the beginning of this year in West Milford, New Jersey. A young White man, 22-year-old Richard E. Lindstrom, stuck a three-inch by five-inch, orange-and-black sticker on a traffic sign and was arrested by a policeman who saw him do it. The message on the sticker was: “Earth’s most endangered species: the White race. Help preserve it. Write or call National Alliance, …” Ordinarily one would expect someone in Mr. Lindstrom’s position to receive a citation for littering. In 1981, however, the ADL had succeeded in persuading the legislators of New Jersey to enact a so-called “Ethnic Terrorism Law,” and he was charged under that law. He was facing as much as five years in prison and a fine of $7,500 for posting a sticker asking the public to help preserve the White race.
Anyone who understands the B’nai B’rith mentality can see the logic in that. To suggest that the White race (and, of course, one understands that “White” means European, or Aryan, excluding Semites) ought to be preserved is to challenge the Yahweh-given right of the Sons of the Covenant to rule the earth and its peoples as they see fit. That’s clearly anti-Semitic. That stabs terror into the heart of every righteous Holocaust survivor. Therefore, Mr. Lindstrom committed an act of “ethnic terrorism” and ought to be put away for good.
Under the circumstances, however, to have tried him on an “ethnic terrorism” charge at this time would have been premature and might even have jeopardized the ADL’s campaign for a comprehensive Federal “hate crime” law. There were vague mutterings from the American Civil Liberties Union, and it was even conceivable that some of the more loosely controlled elements in the news media might publicize the case and cause a White backlash around the country. Cooler heads in the local ADL office eventually prevailed, and the charge against Mr. Lindstrom was reduced to one of littering. Five years from now they might be able to make the “ethnic terrorism” charge stick, but not in 1990.
To ensure that they not only will have the Federal laws in place they are seeking by the end of this decade, but also will be able to make them stick, the ADL and other Jewish groups are coordinating their efforts. For the past few years they have been using the controlled entertainment media in an especially insidious way to condition the American people to accept passively the yoke planned for them. They have created a new film genre — the “White terrorist” film — to persuade the public that there is a growing danger from armed White “haters.”
In 1987 we were hit with Into the Homeland, a film which attempts to convince East Coast city dwellers that the rural heartland of the Midwest is on the point of being taken over by heavily armed Christian Fundamentalists who not only don’t like non-Whites, but who deal murderously with anyone of any hue who gets in their way. Only viewers with sharp eyes will catch the acknowledgement to the ADL among the credits at the end of the film. The film uses the scenario developed in a special report issued by the ADL in 1986, “The American Farmer and the Extremists.”
In 1988 we were treated to a number of other films of the same ilk, the three most notable of them being Betrayed, Skinheads — the Second Coming of Hate, and Talk Radio. The first of this trio, which was the most widely seen, portrays the White “haters” of the rural Midwest as not only heavily armed but also well organized and well financed, with top-level political connections in Washington. Their favorite Saturday-night pastime is to kidnap a Black from a nearby town, turn him loose in the woods, and then hunt him down and kill him.
Skinheads — the Second Coming of Hate is the first in a series of Jewish films portraying working-class urban White youths who affect the skinhead dress and tonsure as viciously depraved, murderous thugs who hate not only Blacks and Jews but the whole world. The guidelines for these films are set in several ADL publications, most notably “`Shaved for Battle’: Skinheads Target America’s Youth” (1987) and “Young and Violent: The Growing Menace of America’s Neo-Nazi Skinheads” (1988).
Talk Radio, loosely based on the 1984 assassination of Jewish radio host Alan Berg in Denver, allegedly by White revolutionaries, advances the thesis that people who haven’t wholeheartedly embraced the brave, new pluralistic world of racial mixing, homosexuality, and feminism promoted by the ADL — i.e., White racists — are hair-trigger psychotics who may explode with murderous fury at the least provocation. It is the only one of the 1988 films which is even remotely credible to a sophisticated viewer. Most American television and cinema viewers are anything but sophisticated, unfortunately. The Jews already have succeeded in convincing many of them that certain completely legal acts or patterns of behavior are illegal. After seeing so many television episodes in which a hateful Ku Klux Klansman sneaks around like a criminal and is treated like a criminal by the other actors, the viewer can hardly be blamed for having the confused notion that there’s something inherently illegal about being a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
In 1989, among many others, we had Dead Bang and So Proudly We Hail, two anti-skinhead films which distort the skinhead life-style into something far beyond the bounds of reality. Skinheads are depicted as the violence-prone storm troopers of a huge, sophisticated, highly organized neo-Nazi network. The latter of these films was a made-for-TV film written and directed by Lionel Chetwynd of the American Jewish Committee. In a booklet published by the Jewish group in conjunction with the broadcast of the film over CBS-affiliated stations, Skinheads: Who They Are & What to Do When They Come to Town, Chetwynd writes:
“”So Proudly We Hail” is my way of speaking out. Through a fictionalized account based on real events, the film demonstrates how hate can be cultivated and grown into ideology. ” One can only wonder what “real events” Chetwynd had in mind. The film shows a neo-Nazi organization developed to a level that real neo-Nazis can only dream about. And it drags out old, long-discredited Jewish canards about lampshades made from the skin of flayed Jewish concentration-camp victims and the like. The bulk of the American Jewish Committee’s booklet shows as little regard for the truth as the film itself, consisting mainly of absurdly exaggerated claims of the menace to ordinary citizens from skinheads and exhortations to support various Jewish “model statutes” on “hate crimes” and outlawing semiautomatic weapons.
In 1990, the “White terrorist” genre is expanding to include segments of several popular cops-and-robbers television series, as well as full-length films. And the dual purpose remains: to both repulse and frighten the average American. Racially conscious White men and women must be perceived by the conforming television viewer as both hateful and dangerous.
Within the next few years the ADL hopes to have enforceable Federal “hate crime” legislation in place which, in the name of preventing “religious vandalism” or “ethnic intimidation,” will make it illegal to print, possess, sell, or post a sticker of the sort Richard Lindstrom put on a traffic sign in West Milford, New Jersey, earlier this year. Not just stickers, but also books, pamphlets, leaflets — or any public utterance — offensive to a racial or religious minority or to homosexuals will be outlawed. Whether or not a person was motivated by a dislike for Blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or some other officially protected minority when he took some action against one of them will determine his punishment, and anything that he has said or written in the past may be used to infer what his motivation was. “Hate crime” will have become “thought crime.”
Lest there be any doubt that this is what the Jews actually are aiming for, consider the following comments by Jewish lawyer Bruce Fein, who writes on legal topics for a number of publications. The comments come from a feature article by him published in the May 1, 1990, edition of the Washington Times, and the article in turn is based on his remarks at an Oxford-Northwestern Debate in Washington the preceding month:
“Should speech intended to ignite religious or racial animosity be prohibited? Let the answer speak from the weeping cemeteries around the world overflowing with the victims of racial and religious prejudice. …What is the paramount purpose of speech in a civilized society? It is to trigger contemplation, reason and tolerance for competing ideas as the moving force for private and political action. …What is the purpose of racially or religiously bigoted speech? It is to arouse unthinking hatred, violence and intolerance in the audience… In sum, the invectives of the racial or religious bigot are no more free speech than is [sic] the vulgar pornographic ululations of Annie Sprinkle a cousin of the Bolshoi Ballet. If the law supposes otherwise, as Mr. Bumble observed, “the law is a ass, a idiot.” If racially or religiously bigoted speech were innocuous, then it might be ignored by governments. But it is not.
The ugliest marks in the history of the United States have stemmed from the incitements to racial prejudice practiced by Theodore Bilbo, Orville Faubus, the Ku Klux Klan, and the producers of “The Birth of a Nation.” Diatribes of these types create an explosive social nitroglycerine waiting for an epithet or racial incident to spark violence. …It is said that if racially or religiously bigoted speech is squelched, there will be no stopping point to prevention of genuine free speech. Nonsense! The progress of civilization has been the progress of making refinements and differentiations in the law. Prohibitions on racially or religiously derogatory speech have existed in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, West Germany, and elsewhere without undermining democracy, political dissent or debate. …Prohibiting racially and religiously bigoted speech is praiseworthy because it seeks to elevate, not to degrade, because it draws from human experience, not from woolly dogmas or academic slogans, because it salutes reason as the backbone of freedom and tolerance. Is that clear enough?”
Those “woolly dogmas” and “academic slogans” this smart-mouth Jew boy dismisses with a sneer are the things that the founders of this nation were prepared to defend with their lives, things that men of our race have given their lives for often in the past. He and his fellow Jews evidently believe, however, that the present generation of Americans have had their minds and their spines sufficiently softened by 40 years of Jewish propaganda so that they won’t even look up from their television screens when our freedom to speak our minds is taken away from us and Jewish “reason” becomes the law of the land.
He is correct, of course, in indicating that speech is restricted in many other countries — although hardly without undermining dissent or debate. In Canada, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and Sweden, to mention just a few places, the Jews have succeeded in making it a criminal offense to question their perennially profitable “Holocaust” claims, for example. The German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel, whose case has been discussed several times in these pages, has been convicted and sentenced in Canada for that very “hate crime.” In Sweden last December a radio broadcaster was sentenced to prison and the license of his station was revoked because he criticized Israeli actions against Palestinians in a way that Jews considered derogatory.
George Orwell missed the date by a few years — at least, for the United States — but it is clear that if B’nai B’rith has its way the Thought Police will be a fact of life here in the near future, and racism will be a crime — not Jewish racism (also known as Zionism), of course, or Black racism, just racism of the White variety. Mr. Fein and his compatriots in the ADL are counting on having patriotic Americans disarmed by that time, so that they will be powerless to resist those designated by the government to enforce the laws against “thought crime.” Be that as it may, Fein and Company should be aware that there still will be a few White Americans, with or without assault rifles, willing to die for their freedom — but they don’t intend to be the only ones to die. Got that, Jew boy?