In our program last week we talked about the Jewish campaign to outlaw Politically Incorrect speech: so called "hate speech." Of course, as I mentioned last week, the Jews aren't the only ones trying to abolish the Bill of Rights. The Jews are the principal schemers and the prime movers, but the radical feminists are among their most zealous allies; so is the homosexual lobby. Every group in this screwed-up society of ours that has had special privileges bestowed on it by the government -- every member of the Clinton coalition -- wants to silence anyone who might be inclined to question his group's privileges. And then there are the bleeding-heart liberals, who really believe that the freedom not to be offended by what anyone else says or writes is more important than freedom of speech.
But the Jews are the ones planning the campaign, and the mass media are their principal weapons against our freedom. Two weeks ago a 30-year-old White man, Eric Toews, died in Tacoma, Washington, after being savagely beaten, kicked, and stomped on a Tacoma street by a gang of between 15 and 20 Blacks in what even the local newspapers described as a "thrill killing." Now, the reason Eric Toews was beaten to death by a gang of Blacks is that the local news media had carefully avoided reporting a dozen other vicious, unprovoked beatings of White men walking alone on Tacoma streets during the previous month. And the reason that the news media had avoided saying anything about the earlier beatings is that the victims were White men, and the gang was Black.
You see, the news media in Tacoma weren't waiting for "hate speech" to become illegal. They already had imposed a rule against "hate speech" on themselves, and what could be more "hateful" than reporting the attacks on White men by a gang of Black teenagers? The Tacoma news media were concerned that if they reported the attacks, local Whites might take measures to protect themselves against non-Whites. At the very least, news of the attacks would have caused some Whites to have bad feelings about teen aged Black gangs: the news would have "incited racial hatred," as the liberals like to say. In other words, reporting the attacks and identifying the attackers as Blacks and the victims as Whites would fall within the generally understood definition of "hate speech." So the news media in Tacoma kept quiet about the attacks until Eric Toews was beaten to death. Even then the Seattle Post-Intelligencer told its readers that the police had: "no reason to believe the attacks were racially motivated." Really: no reason. So, you see, the police also have learned not to say anything which might be considered "hate speech" even before the First Amendment has been abolished.
The family and friends of Eric Toews really aren't as understanding of the attitude of the police and the media as they should be. In fact, they are angry: One friend, Jesse Kimmerling, said bluntly: "This wouldn't have happened if he had known about the earlier assaults." One of Eric's employers, Dan Zimmer, said:
"Maybe this could have been avoided, and Erik would still be talking to us if he knew it was not safe to walk alone in that area, if the police had made the population aware this was going on."
Well, I don't know, but the implication of those statements doesn't sound good to me. I think Mr. Kimmerling and Mr. Zimmer ought to be thankful that we don't have a "hate speech" law yet; if we did, they might be in trouble.
One predictable consequence of police and media restraint in dealing with the Black-on-White gang attacks in Tacoma is that they have spread to other communities in the Pacific Northwest. Last week, on August 31, between 7:00 PM and midnight, a gang of Black teenagers roamed through downtown Seattle, selecting White men at random and beating them and robbing them in at least six separate assaults. The very brief report on these assaults in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on September 2 mentioned the Tacoma murder of Eric Toews and quoted a police spokesman who said that the Seattle assaults seem to be "copycat" attacks. Seattle's other major newspaper, the Seattle Times, neglected to mention the race of either the victims or the attackers in its news coverage. That was the general pattern for the other news media, which described the gang of attackers only as "young men wearing red shirts with shaved heads." There was no mention of race, and many citizens undoubtedly were left with the impression from this description that the attackers were White skinheads.
I'll tell you about another way in which the news media are participating in this Jewish campaign against so-called "hate speech," and that is by attempting to convince the more impressionable members of the public that "hate speech" already is illegal. I'll give you a hypothetical example: A member of the Ku Klux Klan gets in a fight with a Black Muslim over a parking space, and one of the two is killed. When the news appears in a mainstream newspaper, here are the two possibilities for the way it will be headed. If it is the White man who is killed by the Black, the headline will read: "Man charged in parking space slaying." If it is the Black who is killed by the White man, the report will be headed: "White racist charged in unprovoked murder of Black man." And it's not just the newspapers, I mentioned in an earlier broadcast that when John King, one of the three White ex-convicts who killed a Black ex-convict by dragging him behind a truck in Jasper, Texas, was sentenced for the killing last year, NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw announced the sentence on the NBC Evening News with these words: "In Jasper, Texas, today the racist got the death penalty."
The subliminal message there is that John King was sentenced to death for his racism, rather than for any specific criminal act. I've seen even more blatant cases of this sort of media trickery. A man is distributing leaflets that have a racial message by tossing them from his car window onto lawns or driveways as he drives through a residential area. He is observed by a policeman, who arrests him and charges him with littering. The headline of the newspaper report will read: "Man arrested and charged in distribution of racist leaflets." It's clear what the message is that the average lemming will absorb from that. It's not that littering is illegal; it's that distributing racist leaflets is illegal. Now, newspaper people are crooked, but most of them aren't stupid. When they do something like that it's deliberate. They intended to deceive. And it's a very common sort of deception. Keep your eyes open when you read your newspaper, and you'll spot similar cases yourself.
Now I'll tell you about a very recent personal experience I have had in this regard. It's especially interesting, because it illustrates not only the aspect we've just talked about of the media role in the anti-First Amendment campaign, but it also shows us the government's role in this subversive effort. As many of you know, these American Dissident Voices radio broadcasts are not the only medium I use for reaching the public with my message. I also use music. In fact, last year I bought two record companies, one in the United States and one in Sweden. Both of them publish and distribute resistance music, which reaches mostly young people. Three months ago I had a visit from a young German musician who has made a name for himself with resistance music in Europe. He is Hendrik Möbus, and he is 24 years old. I invited him to stay as my guest and help me establish new outlets in Europe for my records. And that's what he did for 10 weeks. He stayed as my guest, and we talked about the role of music in our overall effort.
Hendrik is an extremely intelligent young man, quite serious, and entirely committed to our struggle. When he was a teenager in East Germany, however, he got himself into trouble. At the age of 16 he was involved in a killing. Well, he was tried and convicted as a juvenile, and he served his prison term, using his five years in prison to get his thinking straightened out. Eventually he was released, and after that he devoted himself to his music. But he wasn't as discreet as he might have been: he began telling the mainstream German media what he thought about things. Now, in Germany since 1945 it has been illegal to tell anyone what you think about things, unless your ideas are Politically Correct. That's what happens to you when you lose a war: you lose your freedom. So the German government told Hendrik he would have to go back to prison.
Hendrik decided he'd rather not do that; he'd rather continue producing and promoting resistance music. So he left Germany and came to the United States -- legally, with a passport and a visa. The German government then asked the Clinton government to arrest Hendrik and send him back to Germany, so that he could be put in prison for saying what he thought.
Two weeks ago today, when Hendrik left my place to buy some groceries, a dozen of Mr. Clinton's secret policemen jumped on him, jammed a pistol in his ear, slammed his face down on the back of a car so hard that teeth marks were left in the paint, twisted his arm behind his back with such force that they broke the arm, and hustled him away. Hendrik is a quiet, skinny, non-violent intellectual. He was unarmed and put up absolutely no resistance when he was arrested. And yet they broke his arm.
And the Federal cops who arrested him knew what he was being arrested for. They had copies of the extradition request. They knew that his alleged offense was simply speaking to the press in Germany. And yet they broke his arm when they arrested him. And then, before Hendrik could contact me or an attorney, they shoved a paper in his face and told him to sign it. It would make things a lot easier for him they said. Hendrik, in a great deal of pain from his broken arm and not really understanding the situation, signed an agreement not to contest deportation to Germany for overstaying his visa. That was a mistake, but I believe that it can be undone, so that the government cannot short circuit the extradition process with a deportation.
I'll tell you why the Clinton government would rather deport Hendrik than try to extradite him, and why I prefer to fight an extradition instead of a deportation. The reason why the government prefers deportation and we prefer extradition is that the things Hendrik did in Germany which resulted in the extradition request are not illegal in the United States. In the United States they are constitutionally protected activities. Most Americans don't understand that the Germans have no free speech. They don't understand that in 1945 we didn't liberate the Germans; we took away their freedom and imposed an occupation government on them, from which the present German government is descended. The present German government would like to keep it that way, with most Americans remaining in the dark on this issue. And most Americans also don't understand that their government in Washington collaborates with the German government in punishing Germans who say what they think. The Clinton government would like to keep it that way, with most Americans remaining in the dark about their government's true attitude toward free speech.
I want to use Hendrik's case to expose the utter hypocrisy of the U.S. government where free speech is concerned. Fortunately for this purpose, Hendrik's case is a matter of enormous public interest in Germany now. The German public is fascinated by the fact that a 24-year-old German has been arrested and brutalized by the secret police here for making a Politically Incorrect statement in Germany. I already have given three major interviews to Germany's largest television networks in the past eight days, and if the German interest in Hendrik continues, the controlled media in this country will have a hard time ignoring the principal issue involved: namely, that the present U.S. government, while pretending to be in favor of free speech actually sympathizes with repressive laws of the sort the Jews have succeeded in imposing on the Germans, so that they can continue using Germany as a cash cow for Israel, and the Germans can't complain about it.
Imagine this: A Jew in Saudi Arabia is arrested carrying a sign that says, "Mohammed was a bed-wetter." The Jew escapes from the Saudi police and comes to the United States. The Saudi government requests that our government arrest him and return him to Saudi Arabia to be tried for sacrilege. Can you imagine the sort of cooperation the Saudi government would receive from the Clinton government? Can you imagine Madeleine Albright sending out the U.S. Marshals to round up the Jew, breaking his arm in the process, and handing him over to the Saudis so they can whack off his head in a public square in Riyadh? Can you even imagine that? But when the German government requests the extradition of a young German musician who composes the sort of music and says the sort of things the Jews and the liberals don't like, the Clinton government falls all over itself in its eagerness to help the German government punish the young man who merely did what any American is free to do. The Clinton government and the Jewish media bosses will tell you that they believe in free speech, but I tell you that it is what they do rather than what they say which reveals to us what they really believe. The officials of the Clinton government take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, but in fact they themselves are the greatest and most dangerous enemies of the Constitution.
And the Jewish media have employed the same sort of deliberate deception in their reporting of Hendrik's arrest that they have employed in practically every other case where ideological issues are involved. So far not one media report in the United States has focused on the fact that the German extradition request cited only so-called "offenses" in Germany which are not offenses in the United States. Not one U.S. newspaper had a headline anything like, "German musician arrested in United States for making Politically Incorrect music and press statements in Germany." The headline in the Washington Post on August 29 was: "Fugitive Neo-Nazi from Germany Is Captured in West Virginia." And the lead paragraph in the Washington Post story is:
After secretly trailing a German neo-Nazi fugitive on his journey . . . to West Virginia, the U.S. Marshals Service arrested the convicted murderer near the 200-acre property of White separatist William Pierce, author of The Turner Diaries, authorities announced yesterday.
Now, you can read the fine print for more information on the arrest, but the message that will stick in the mind of the average newspaper reader is what is in the headline and the lead paragraph: Hendrik was arrested for being a neo-Nazi, and he also is a fugitive murderer. The pattern was the same for the other U.S. media. The Associated Press story, also on August 29, was headed, "German neo-Nazi fugitive arrested in West Virginia." The story in West Virginia's terminally liberal Charleston Gazette the next day -- that's August 30 -- was headed, "Police catch up with neo-Nazi in Lewisburg."
Again I stress that not one report of Hendrik's arrest in the mainstream media focused on the fact that he was arrested only for what he said in Germany. Instead they all implied that his real offense is being a neo-Nazi and that it's perfectly reasonable to arrest people for that in the United States. And of course, they dragged in the red herring of his juvenile offense and then tried to associate the ideas of "fugitive murderer" and "neo-Nazi" in the minds of readers. And not one of them -- not one -- mentioned that the U.S. Marshals broke his arm when they arrested him, despite the fact that he was unarmed, offered no resistance, and was not believed to be violent or aggressive. And I should mention in this regard that Hendrik was examined by a physician after his arrest, his arm was x-rayed, and it was determined by the physician to be fractured -- but not a word of this appeared in the mainstream media here. They didn't want the public to have any sympathy for a "hate speech" criminal. Again, imagine what they would have had to say about a broken arm in the hypothetical case of that Jew committing sacrilege in Saudi Arabia. You would never hear the end of it. It would have been another Elian Gonzales story, with televised images of the bruises and swelling, with hourly updates on his condition from the prison physician, and so on, day after day. But in Hendrik's case, not a word.
Well, I hope that I have made my point that neither the politicians in the Clinton government nor the media bosses really believe in free speech, and they're lying when they say they do. They believe in free speech only for those people with whom they agree ideologically, those people whose interests are the same as theirs. And they definitely do not want people who disagree with them to be able to express themselves. That is why they're pushing so hard now for so-called "hate speech" laws and trying to make the lemmings believe that they already can be prosecuted and sent to prison for saying anything which is "racist." That's why the Clinton government collaborates so enthusiastically with the German government in persecuting Germans for Political Incorrectness.
My aim in telling you all of these things is to alert you to the danger we are facing from those who want to take away our liberty and to try to galvanize you into speaking out yourself and alerting others. My aim is not to discourage you or make you feel that all is lost because the forces arrayed against our freedom are so powerful. So let me end our program today on a positive note. The German government is not desperate to make an example out of a 24-year-old kid who smarted off to the media because it is confident that history is on its side. On the contrary, the German government is bent out of shape by Hendrik because it's scared to death of him -- and thousands of others like him. The German government senses the instability in the air. It knows that the whole structure on which its power rests is rotten. It is afraid of dissent, afraid of where dissent may lead.
And the Clinton government and the Jews behind the government are afraid of dissidents for exactly the same reason. They don't send a SWAT-team of trigger-happy goons after a skinny, unarmed, 24-year-old musician with Politically Incorrect ideas and break his arm because they're filled with confidence in the historical inevitability of militant lesbianism, or whatever it is the Clinton government stands for.
They do it because they are afraid. Let's help make their nightmare come true.
I want to hire the best political asylum attorney I can find to fight the Clinton government's effort to turn Hendrik Möbus over to the German government. One of my reasons for doing this is that I believe Hendrik should not be imprisoned for saying what he believes, either in Germany or in the United States. A more important reason, however, is that I want to make as big an issue as I can of the Clinton government's hypocrisy about the First Amendment. I want to rub the government's nose in its hypocrisy.
|Main Page||Articles||Fan Mail/ Hate Mail||News|
|Action||Legal Information||Media Coverage||Absurd||Links|
|It is possible to take a second, more penetrating, look at people who have the reputation for villainy and evil, and sometimes the second look makes for a reappraisal of the naughty ones. - John O'Hara|