Friday, November 30, 2012

Dividing the Race


Dividing the Race

When it was cited by Niccolo Machiavelli early in the 16th century, it already was a strategy which the enemies of our people have used successfully against us more than once, and it is the strategy which is responsible for our present peril.

Surprisingly, the division of our people is widely discussed in front of us by the enemies who have accomplished it, although the discussions are heavily laden with disingenuousness: the heterosexual White male, they gloat, has been dispossessed; his power has been taken by minorities and women, and there is nothing he can do about it except learn to live with the fait accompli.

Actually, it's not that simple. The division itself is far more complicated than heterosexual White males on one side and Jews, homosexuals, Blacks, Asians, mestizos, and women on the other. The most important complication is that many White women, probably a majority, are on the side of their men; and many heterosexual White males have joined the other side. Furthermore, there is much which can be done about the situation.

The division we would like to see, of course, is all heterosexual White men and women on one side and all Jews homosexuals, Blacks Asians, and mestizos on the other. Then we would be ready for the shooting to start, and we would settle matters pretty quickly. The Jews understand that, and that is why their efforts have been directed not only at empowering the non-Whites and the perverts but also toward alienating as many White men and women from their own race as possible.

I remember talking to groups of White college students 25 years ago and pointing out to them where the "civil rights" agitation, which even then had become quite fashionable on campuses, was heading. I told them that it would lead to the decline of our morals and our culture, the disintegration of our society, and finally to a race war between Whites and Blacks in America. Most of the students just listened without noticeable reaction, as if they were watching another television program. Only a small minority expressed either a favorable or unfavorable response. Nearly all of the former were males: unfortunately, many of them males with a low testosterone level, who crept up to me quietly afterward and expressed their approval when no one else was around to hear them.

Both males and females were among my vocal opponents, but I was always sad to note that the girls tended to be more numerous and more hostile than the boys. After a talk I gave at the University of Maryland, one White girl proudly, " Well, if there's a race war between Whites and Blacks, I'll be shooting at you from the Black side."

I spoke to a class of seniors at a private high school, also in Maryland, and while the teacher smirked in the back of the class a blonde girl in the front row sat next to the only Black male in the class and kissed and fondled him throughout my talk, in an obviously prearranged effort to disconcert me.

Women are much more fashion conscious than men. Of course, there are men, even heterosexual men, who worry very much about wearing the latest style in cuff links or ties, but women have always been far ahead of them in such matters, far more easily persuaded that they absolutely had to buy new wardrobes every time the fashion moguls raised or lowered hems an inch.

The Jews, to their credit, understood before the rest of us that the female tendency to be a slave to fashion is an innate, sex-linked characteristic, and they also realized that ideological fashions could bind women as strongly as fashions in dress and ornament. It's no coincidence that nearly all of the influential gurus and heroines of feminism of the past half-century have been Jewesses: Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Andrea Dworkin, Shulamith Firestone, Lucy Komisar, Lynda Schor, Gloria Steinem, ad nauseam.

Thus, the arbiters of fashion in Hollywood and New York who used the cinema and television to make racial mixing fashionable among the trendy set also made feminism fashionable among White women. The madness has gone so far today that substantial numbers of otherwise normal, heterosexual White women have let themselves be persuaded that not only can they be just as capable combat pilots or firefighters as men but that only women really know how to give women sexual fulfillment.

Fortunately, most of them have not yet brought practice into line with that doctrine, but they have managed to make themselves thoroughly neurotic trying to reconcile doctrine with instinct. More relevant to the matter under discussion here, many women have let themselves be maneuvered into a position where they view any assault on the currently fashionable ideology of racial equality as an assault on their "right" as women to be military school cadets or corporate raiders. These women have a subconscious understanding that this "right" is just as artificial as the "equality" claimed by non-Whites and homosexuals, and they have accepted these others as their allies in fending off the efforts of heterosexual White males to drag them out of the cockpit and the boardroom and put them back into the kitchen, the bedroom, and the nursery. They have bought the Jewish argument that heterosexual White males should be regarded with suspicion until the latter have demonstrated their "sensitivity."

Unfortunately, all too many men have done just that. Men may not be quite as trendy as women, on the average, but that's not saying much for them. The difference is a matter of degree, not kind. There are all too many men who are as afraid of having a Politically Incorrect idea in their heads as the average woman is of being caught in unfashionable attire: if "sensitivity" is "in," they gladly will put on the most disgusting display of it. And there are men who simply have no ideas in their heads except getting ahead. Unlike the "sensitive" ones, they have no shortage of testosterone, but they also have no sense of responsibility or propriety: they will ally themselves to whatever faction seems to offer them the best career prospects, and they will pay lip service to the corresponding ideology. Like the feminists, they will regard any other man who tries to rock the boat they are in as the enemy.

...[W]e may find ourselves allied with many people whom in the past we barely tolerated: the religious zealots of the Christian right, the essentially conservative types, [etc.]...

Actually, that's too stark a picture. Most people, on both sides, are not really partisans. They're just spectators, who find themselves, by accident more than by choice, in one camp or the other, and they sing along with the crowd without really thinking about the meaning of the words.

That makes the division no less real and no less dangerous for us, however. If looking at the great, passive middle tends to blur the division, it is sharp enough at the extremes, where there is passion aplenty: passion most often expressed as hate.

In the trendier circles of Washington, D.C., and other large, eastern cities, there is more bigotry than there ever was in a Ku Klux Klan klavern. It may be that back in the 1930s some of the more backward Klansmen didn't like Catholics or foreigners (although the Klan since has had the good sense to drop those divisions), but that's nothing compared to what the Politically Correct bigots in Washington don't like today.

Walk into one of their cocktail parties wearing a National Rifle Association button, and the conversation will freeze as suddenly as it would if Nelson Mandela showed up at a Klan picnic. If you speak with a rural accent, you will be regarded with immediate suspicion. If you are from the South, then you'll be expected to prove that it's only the "New" South of Jews, Blacks, and Politically Correct yuppies with which you have any connections. If you're especially "Aryan-looking" (a la Rutger Hauer or Darryl Hannah, for example), you can deflect hostility by coming with a Black date.

In these circles the word "White," used as a racial designation, evokes instant fear and loathing, especially among the Whites. They usually won't admit their hatred of their own kind to nontrendies, but among themselves they are quite open about it. They all agree that it is a good thing that North America is becoming darker, and they look forward eagerly to the day when the continent will have a non-White majority. Things will be much better then, they all aver: the greatest evil on the planet, White racism, finally will be suppressed, and love and brotherhood will reign.

When they watch a cowboys-and-Indians movie, they always root for the Indians: when a White is scalped or tied to a stake to be burned, they cheer. Reading The Turner Diaries, or any book in which the Whites win, "sickens" them, (to borrow the word most often used by mainstream journalists to describe their reaction to my novel in the reviews they wrote of it following the Oklahoma City bombing). Viewing Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will, with its magnificent portrayal of proud, racially conscious White men and women, is a "chilling" experience, they say, even though it was made by the greatest woman cinematic genius.

Their dream world is one high in melanin and low in testosterone. It is a world where strong women, wearing trousers and holding the key executive positions, share power with Blacks, Jews, and other non-Whites, and everyone lives in a city much like New York. Everything will be run by committees, and problems will be solved by talking them to death. White males will be tolerated in subservient positions, if they are either homosexual or have been "sensitized." This picture of the world is one which has been drilled into them during the past 30 years, starting at puberty with MTV and Politically Correct comic books.

They tend to fall into the mistaken belief that they are the universe, because they live inside a media-generated illusion-world and talk only with each other. But they do chatter in nervous fright whenever they are reminded that there are some of those awful heterosexual White males left out there who haven't been sensitized yet. They look to the government to protect them from this threat and maintain their empowerment, and they are hot to have the government use whatever measures are expedient for that purpose. In particular, they want a roundup of guns and a clampdown on Politically Incorrect speech.

Then there's our side of the division. Close to the middle are those White men and women who still believe that the traditional family, with a male breadwinner and protector and a female homemaker, is not only worth saving, but that it's the natural way for men and women to live and by far the best way to raise emotionally and spiritually healthy children.

Unfortunately, the changes in American society during the past half century or so have made the traditional family an endangered species. In 1940 most married women were full-time homemakers. Between 1940 and 1990 the portion of married women working outside the home increased by a factor of four, to approximately 60 percent. More than half of married mothers with children under 17 years of age are now employed full time outside the home, and the percentage rises every year.

This change has not been entirely a matter of choice: increasing urbanization of the economy, with jobs moving from rural to urban areas, and the rising cost of housing relative to per capita income have made it much more difficult to maintain a family on one income. Greatly exacerbating the situation, however, has been a trend in lifestyles toward ever greater consumption. People on both sides of the division have let themselves be persuaded that they cannot live without many things that their grandparents found quite unnecessary.

Close to the middle are those White men and women who still believe
that the traditional family, with a male breadwinner and protector and
a female homemaker, is not only worth saving, but that it's the natural way
for men and women to live and by far the best way to raise
emotionally and spiritually healthy children.
The division at the middle, then, is not between people who are members of traditional families on our side and those with working wives and mothers on the other. Rather, it is between those who would live in traditional families if they could, and those who regard traditional families as old-fashioned and repressive and look on the present trend with favor.
Looking at the division from a different viewpoint, those near the middle on our side are those who value freedom above comfort and security, while the converse is true for those on the other side. The herd instinct is a little weaker on our side than on theirs. They have a near monopoly on authoritarian personalities: on people who like to speak with reverence of “our President” and “our government” and to hate anyone who lacks their reverence.
We look to ourselves to satisfy our needs; they look to the government. We also tend to live more in tune with our instincts-more the way God intended us to live, the Christians on our side would say-while the others favor life-styles as artificial as their politics.
As we move further away from the middle, the passion becomes stronger. Trendy people-people who always want to do only what everyone else is doing and would never dream of striking out in a new direction, away from the crowd, or trying something they hadn't seen on television-feel comfortable with lots of rules and regulations. Things that aren't regulated by the government make them nervous. They like to buy licenses and apply for permits and pay fees and be told just what's permissible and what isn't. It's like having a stamp of assurance from the government that what they're doing is fashionable, or at least acceptable.
They cannot imagine the feeling of rage and resentment that rises in people with a more independent or adventurous nature when the latter are confronted with one of these artificial government barriers. Here's an example: When I was a kid I loved fireworks. I could go to a fireworks store and buy whatever I wanted. I could ride my bicycle to a vacant lot and set off my firecrackers and bottle rockets without violating any laws. Today there are very few places left in the United States where kids can do that. Certainly, there always were inept dolts who managed to blow off a finger or lose an eye playing with fireworks, just as there are people who will manage to shoot themselves or a member of the family by accident if they get their hands on a gun. We used to be willing to accept such risks. We were aware that if you're not careful you can hurt yourself. We understood that living was an inherently dangerous business. We preferred a world in which there were freedom and risks to a supposedly safer world walled in by rules.
By the time I was 12 years old or so, I had developed a more serious interest in rockets and related matters than store-bought fireworks could satisfy. I used to take the money I made mowing lawns in Dallas, Texas, and get an adult to give me a ride downtown to Greene Brothers, the big laboratory supply warehouse, where I would give a clerk the list of chemicals and glassware I wanted, and then I would walk through the warehouse with him while he found the items for me on the shelves. A dollar would buy more nitric acid or powdered aluminum in those days than it will today. The important thing , though, was that I didn't have to fill out any forms or show the clerk a permit from the government to buy what I wanted.
Pyrotechnics isn't everyone's thing, of course, but the same thicket of government restrictions has overgrown nearly every activity that's not on the beaten path: flying your own airplane, building your own house, collecting your own firearms, operating your own business. It can't be that the government is trying to protect us with its restrictions: it still pays farmers to grow an addictive drug which causes the deaths of 400,000 cigarette smokers in the United States every year. Whatever the government's reason, it is infuriating to plenty of people besides me.
I live in one of those rare, backwoodsy places where there are no building codes, and a property owner doesn't have to ask city hall for permission to dig a hole in his backyard or change his plumbing around. He just does it, and it's nobody's business but his. The trendier locals are trying to change that. They believe that building codes are “progressive” or something of the sort, and they want to have the same sort of rules that property owners in Philadelphia and New York have. Fortunately, there are plenty of other folks like me around here who are resisting, but the trendies are looking for allies in the state government. People who live in New York just wouldn't understand, but there are those of us who really get steamed about such things.
It used to be that men valued their personal honor above all other things, and governments understood and accommodated themselves to their citizens' sense of honor, albeit reluctantly in many cases. That was a long time ago, of course. Even some politicians had a sense of personal honor. (That was a very long time ago.)
It used to be that men valued their personal honor above
all other things, and government understood and accommodated
themselves to their citizens' sense of honor...
In those olden days, if a man were in public with his wife, and a stranger made a lewd remark to her or put his hands on her, the offender could count on having to defend his life. If the husband killed or seriously injured him, and there were witnesses to the original offense, the husband would have been justified in his actions, in the eyes of his peers and of the government. Similar considerations applied if the original offense were against the husband himself. The corollary to this was that people tended to be more polite in public, more careful not to give offense.
How different it is today! The feminists become infuriated at the mere suggestion that a man should feel any obligation to protect a woman. Protection suggests a sense of possession. Protection is a job for the government, not for individual men. And the Jews, who always have regarded with a sneering sort of amusement and disbelief the Aryans' willingness to fight for the sake of honor, have joined the feminists in moving us all into a more enlightened era, where honor counts for nothing.
There are, of course, a few of us whose hearts are still back in the Stone Age. We may control ourselves most of the time. We may swallow insults and other offenses without reprisal, just to stay out of jail; but when we do, we feel dishonored, and when we feel dishonored a feeling of hatred begins building in us: hatred against the government which forced us to dishonor ourselves, hatred against the politicians and the bureaucrats and the other supporters of the government.
I am acquainted with the details of a recent case in which a White man and his wife were insulted in a mall parking lot by a Black who had nearly hit their car with his. After screaming his insults about White “crackers” and “honkies” and being told in turn that he and his fellow “niggers” should go back to Africa, the Black drove off, then came back a few minutes later with a Black friend and a brick. Advancing on foot with the brick in hand toward the car in which the White man and his wife were sitting, the Black screamed at the White man, “I'm gonna smash your motherf-ing head in.” Whereupon, the White man tore open his glove compartment, grabbed a pistol, and shot the Black dead.
During the subsequent trial, both the defense and prosecution witnesses agreed that the Black had threatened to smash the White man's head with a brick. The only difference in the testimony was that the prosecution's witnesses-the Black's male friend and a White woman-said that the Black dropped his brick and took a couple of steps backward just before he was shot, while the defense said that the Black still was holding the brick when the White man fired. The key to the outcome of the trial, however, was that the prosecution emphasized that the White man, who was a university graduate with a good job and a stable marriage, happened to be a “racist,” who didn't believe that Blacks should be permitted to remain in America. The Jewish prosecutor read excerpts to the court from Politically Incorrect books and letters seized from the White couple's home.
The mostly White jury, showing to the world that it had no sympathy for White “racists,” brought in a Politically Correct verdict of guilty of premeditated murder, and the White judge sentenced the White man to life in prison. Such an egregious injustice may be considered only a fluke by some-the consequence of an unlucky combination of a “sensitive” jury, a Jewish prosecutor, a politically ambitious judge, and an inept defense lawyer-but those who pay attention to such matters can cite a hundred similar cases from recent years.
The Jews, the feminists, and their collaborators would like to lock up all of us Stone Age men, who would rather fight than crawl. Our presence makes them uncomfortable. And so they have perverted the “justice” system to serve their purpose. And they're getting away with it.
Or are they? Every time they have a success of the sort cited above, every time they gloat and smirk publicly about such a victory over heterosexual White males, the hatred against them builds, the burning desire to tear out their throats and smash their heads grows.
Which brings us back to sex again. Heterosexual White males who used to know instinctively what to do when a Black attacked them with a brick also used to know instinctively how to behave when they wanted a mate-or even the temporary company of a woman. The changing of all the rules to suit feminist and Jewish notions of “equality” has confused many of them.
Most of us, to be sure, have learned to adapt. Whether we liked it or not, we learned the new etiquette. We also learned that there still are old-fashioned, unreconstructed women to be found-feminine rather than feminist women-if one knows where to look for them. But they definitely are scarcer than they used to be, and the fellows who have a harder time adapting to unnatural conditions have suffered accordingly. There's hardly anything to make a man angrier than depriving him of a woman's company for an extended period.
So here's what it all boils down to: the war between the Clinton constituency and the rest of us heating up. Astute observers have been commenting for years on the “culture war” raging in America. It was a war between those on one side who believe that children should be raised in a disciplined environment and have old-fashioned values instilled in them, and those on the other side who believe that all any child needs is a big dose of “multiculturalism” via MTV every day.
The folks on the old-fashioned side were fighting with one hand tied behind their backs, though, because they were careful never to admit even to themselves that the “culture war” is really a race war: that what makes MTV so elementally evil is that it is Jewish, that it is the fiendishly crafted instrument of the sinister Jewish billionaire Sumner Redstone. They railed against “multiculturalism,” but they retreated in embarrassment when the multiculturalists charged them with “racism.”
So obviously the Clintonistas were winning, and the rest of us were losing. One easy triumph after another caused the Clinton constituency to throw caution to the winds and to push ahead more rapidly and more brazenly. Homosexuals, radical feminists, and Blacks were brought into more policy-making positions in the government than ever before. Jews came out from behind the scenes and assumed more visible positions of power: on the Supreme Court, in the Cabinet, and as movers and shakers in the Congress. Military leaders who were considered insufficiently “sensitive” were canned.
The Jews defined a new category of crime-”hate crime”-and got the government to go along. The Politically Correct elitists announced that the Constitution is obsolete, and the government decided to prove it by making bloody examples of dissidents, first shooting in cold blood the wife and child of a White separatist at Ruby Ridge and then burning to death nearly a hundred Second Amendment dissidents at Waco.
All of this became a mite too much for us unsensitized heterosexual White males. We decided to make ourselves heard, and we began speaking out more loudly than before. We began using the Internet, and we began making radio broadcasts on those few stations not yet under Jewish control. And a few crazies among us did some wild and stupid things: shooting abortion doctors, bombing a government building, shooting up the White House.
The Clinton constituency responded by announcing the need to silence dissident voices: specifically, to keep Politically Incorrect messages off the Internet and Politically Incorrect radio programs off the airwaves.
Actually, this response was only the unveiling of a small part of a scheme on which they had been laboring for years. The Jews want in the United States the same sort of laws they had succeeded in forcing on the populations of Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, and a dozen other White countries, where it is now illegal for Whites to dispute the Jewish version of history or to criticize Jewish efforts to “multiculturalize” their people. They had succeeded in introducing codes of Politically Correct expression at most universities, in many of the larger corporations, and in the government itself, but they were still wondering how they could put real teeth into these codes by criminalizing what they cleverly refer to as “hate speech” when the Oklahoma City bombers presented them with a golden opportunity. Now they're trying to make the most of it.
It remains to be seen how successful they will be. If they do succeed even partly in their efforts to scuttle the Bill of Rights-even if all they're able to do is knock another brick or two out of the Second Amendment and close down a few Politically Incorrect broadcasters-I believe they'll get a response from us Stone Age types which will make everything which has happened so far seem like a church social.
And I believe that they will be at least that successful. Certainly, free speech has never been truly popular. Joe and Jill Sixpack have never understood why anyone should be permitted to write or say things that offend conventional people. During the 1960s, when the Jews were offending a great many conventional people through their “counterculture” campaign, the freedom to shout obscenities and preach treason was zealously promoted by their trendy collaborators in the cultural, academic, and media establishments. That era is far behind us now, however, and the same trendy collaborators are warning everyone that we really must outlaw “hate speech.”
That'll be another step for them in the division of our people. Many people on our side who're near the middle now will be pulled far out toward the extreme. This radicalization will make us stronger.
The authoritarian types will remain where they are for the most part, on the other side near the middle, supporting “our President” and “our government” as self-righteously as ever. About the only ones we can expect to cross over to us in substantial numbers are those whose oxen are gored by changes. Fortunately, more and more oxen will be gored, as the Jews rush to cram everything they can down our throats while they still have a grip on the situation.
In particular, their continuing drive to usher in the New World Order as soon as possible, with its attendant deindustrialization of America and the proletarianization of the White middle class, will force many to take a position with us who would have preferred to remain squarely on the fence. We should be thankful that the Jews' campaign for the division and destruction of our people is committed to a number of fronts simultaneously, and they cannot easily pull back on one while pushing forward on another.
Thus, even as the division of our people continues, new unions will be formed.
By the time the shooting begins in earnest things almost certainly
will not be divided along the lines we would prefer. What we must strive
for now is to ensure that those on our side of the division will
be able to win.
In our effort to defeat their campaign we may find ourselves allied with many people whom in the past we barely tolerated: the religious zealots of the Christian right, the essentially conservative types who have been gravitating toward the militias, the wild and undisciplined young White people in our cities who had nowhere to turn but to the skinhead movement when they were abandoned by our “multicultural” society, libertarians who finally are waking up to the fact that if they are to preserve any liberty at all they may have to compromise their individualism temporarily, perhaps even a few authoritarians from the military and police establishments who have overdosed on Clintonism.
Thus, even as the division of our people continues, new unions will be formed. By the time the shooting begins in earnest things almost certainly will not be divided along the lines we would prefer. What we must strive for now is to ensure that those on our side of the division will be able to win.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

How Israel Gets a Free Lunch

From National Vanguard magazine, Issue No 104, March-April 1985:
How Israel Gets a Free Lunch

Thy gates shall be open continually...that men may bring unto thee the wealth of the Gentiles...
--Isaiah 60:11

Jews are ingenious people, especially where money is concerned, and their financial ingenuity is nowhere more evident than in Israel. Consider: Whenever the Israeli government runs low on money (which is all the time), the minister of finance merely turns on the printing presses and prints as many more shekels as the government needs. No other government in the world is clever enough to finance itself in such an easy way.

Of course, there are a few little kinks in the Israeli method; for one thing, it causes an astronomical inflation, which has been bouncing around between a 400 per cent and 1,300 per cent annual rate for the past couple of years. In April the rate was 740 per cent.

The Israeli government has tried other methods of paying its bills: income taxes, for example. But Israel is a nation of tax evaders, and they are so clever at concealing income and assets that not even Jewish tax collectors have had much luck at making them pay what they owe. Nevertheless, the Israeli treasury is able to keep 400,000 government employees on the payroll; that's 30 per cent of the 1.34 million-strong Israeli workforce, a much higher proportion of government employees than in any other country on this side of the Iron Curtain.

Israel has the largest per capita foreign debt of any nation, by far; and also the world's largest per capita trade deficit: currently more than $5 billion per year.

Everyone agrees that the Israeli economy is an unmitigated disaster. And yet... the Israeli standard of living continues to rise; it climbed another 6 per cent in 1984. Despite the staggering inflation and trade deficit, Israelis are on a buying binge: home appliances, luxury automobiles, jewelry, foreign travel.

When inflation soars in Canada, Germany, the United States, or Poland -- when one of those countries cannot export enough of its goods to pay for what it must import -- then the people suffer; they must pull in their belts, reduce their consumption, and work harder in order to survive.

Why is it different for Israel? How are the Jews able to defy all the laws of economics with impunity?
...[T]he divinely ordained function of the Gentiles (goyim) is to provide wealth for the Jews.
The answer is no secret at all: Israelis are getting a free lunch, because they have persuaded the Gentile world to pick up the tab for them. Hymie Goldblatt in Tel Aviv is able to buy himself a new Mercedes and take his family on a vacation abroad, because Dick Smith's family in Kansas City is coughing up the tax money to pay for those things. 

The Israelis are receiving $3.4 billion from the U.S. Treasury this year: $1.4 billion in military aid, $1.2 billion in "regular" economic aid, and a "special" $800 million economic aid supplement. That's all in outright gifts, not loans. In addition, American Jews are sending over another $1.5 billion in tax exempt personal donations, which effectively robs the U.S. Treasury of $700 billion in lost taxes. It all adds up to about a $5,000 annual bonus per Israeli family of four.  And that doesn't count a number of other handouts Israel manages to finagle from the U.S. government -- such as a recent grant to pay for the recent resettlement of Ethiopian Jews -- or the hundreds of millions of dollars in "guilt" money extorted from West Germany each year.

Next year the toll on the U.S. Treasury will be substantially higher. Already approved by Congress and the Reagan administration for 1986 are $1.8 billion in military aid around $1.9 billion in economic aid -- both as non-repayable grants.

If the pattern of previous years is followed, however, before the year is over the Israelis will discover various additional needs, costing hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars more. Then they will ask the U.S. government for the additional money, and the government will give it to them. That's essentially the way it was with the $1.5 billion in supplementary aid for 1986 and 1986 which Congress has just voted for them.

The Reagan administration had been dragging its feet on the request for the additional $1.5 billion, telling the Israelis that they should take steps to straighten out their economy instead of always asking for more American aid when they couldn't pay their bills. The Israelis had responded with a transparent pretense of attempting to produce economic reforms, but no one was fooled by the charade; no genuine reforms, no more money, Secretary of State Schultz told the Jews in a rare effort at firmness (which didn't fool anyone either).

 "Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles." (Isaiah 60:16)
Then came Mr. Reagan's April announcement of his intention to lay a wreath in the military cemetery at Bitburg, Germany, followed by an orchestrated wailing about the "Holocaust" from Jewish groups. At the height of the wailing the White House caved in and approved the additional $1.5 billion in aid, with only a promise from Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres that he will tackle the problem of reforming his country's economy soon. In any event, the sort of "reforms" Mr. Peres has in mind are only cosmetic: an increase of 2 percent in Israel's value-added tax; a doubling of the tax on vacations abroad from $150 to $300; an increase in the sales tax on imported luxury items to 20 per cent.

The reason no knowledgeable observer believes that the Israelis will make any serious effort to get their finances out of the red is that they can do so only by reducing their standard of living. And why should Hymie Goldblatt deny himself the good things in life, so long as Dick Smith can be compelled to pay the bill?

The religious Jews -- the ones who take the "prophecies" and other pronouncements of the Old Testament seriously -- consider sponging off the rest of the world to be the God-given right of the Jews.1  And the secular Jews know that, so long as they can keep making the Gentile world feel guilty for the "Holocaust," they can keep gouging the suckers for more money.2

Of course, maintaining a tight grip on the Gentile world's news and entertainment media help the Jews keep the goyim in a giving mood; at least, it keeps the Gentile politicians ready to jump every time the Jews whistle. Even if Dick Smith isn't willing to help Hymie Goldblatt pay for a new Mercedes, the President, his congressman, and both his senators are more than willing to take it out of his taxes anyway; they are more afraid of incurring the wrath of the Jews than they are of losing Dick Smith's vote.

Just to keep the politicians on their toes, though, the Israelis have issued a new threat: If the Reagan administration forces the Peres administration to make any substantial reductions in the Israeli standard of living, the Israeli voters will replace Shimon Peres with Ariel Sharon as the new Prime Minister. The mere thought of having to deal with Sharon -- the ultra-arrogant, bloody-handed "Butcher of Beirut" -- gives Mr. Reagan and his aides nightmares. Sharon, on the other hand, relishes the prospect of being able to kick Gentile butts in Washington, and he criticizes Peres and the other members of the present Israeli government for not taking a tough enough line with the United States. "Unfortunately," he recently said of his colleagues, "they don't know how to face the goyim."

So long as the goyim remain such patsies, however -- plundered and betrayed by their own government, intimidated by the lie of the "Holocaust," with insufficient gumption to wrest control of their own news and entertainment industry away from its present masters, bemused by the philo-Semitic propaganda of the Judeo-Christian churches -- even the mild-mannered Peres should be able to guarantee that Israel will continue to get a free lunch, and that Dick Smith will have to pay for Hymie Goldblatt's Mercedes.

1 At the very core of Judaism is the belief that the Jews were chosen by their deity, Yahweh, to inherit the earth and all its wealth, without having to work for it. Religious Jews believe they have a covenant with Yahweh: if the Jews obey all of the commandments he has given them, then "the Lord  thy God shall...give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, and houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, and vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not...(Deuteronomy 6:10-11)

The Old Testament "prophets" are not at all bashful in reminding their fellow Jews that the divinely ordained function of the Gentiles (goyim) is to provide wealth for the Jews. Thus, "Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles." (Isaiah 60:16)

2 Although the actual number of Jews killed by the Germans during the Second World War was probably less than a million (and most of those lost their lives either by being summarily shot or by catching typhus in the concentration camps in the last months of the war, not by being "gassed"), if one accepts the claimed figure of 6,000,000 victims, then it is easy to calculate that Israel currently is collecting more than $500 in sympathy money per dead Jew per year from the Gentile world.

Monday, November 26, 2012

"We'll Remember, Dr. Pierce!"

From  (24 July 2012)

William Pierce: A Reminiscence
by Robert S. Griffin

“The only immortality that is real is the memory among the living of what we did with our lives.”

DR. PIERCE HADN’T RETURNED my e-mails for two weeks, or was it three? Not like him.

And then his weekly radio program was a repeat. That gave me pause. I hadn’t ever remembered that happening before. I thought about how several times he had said to me, “I have no idea what I am going to do for the radio show this week. There is not one thing in my head.” “Put on a repeat,” I had suggested. “Oh no, I can’t do that,” he immediately came back. Getting out that radio broadcast every week was his responsibility and he was going to carry out his responsibility no matter what. And besides, the radio program gave him great personal satisfaction. No, no repeat shows.

And then another repeat. My stomach churned. I’ve got to call down there.

A Jeff Cotton answered the phone, no one I knew. Jeff told me about the cancer. Oh no. The day, I know now, was July 22, 2002.

The next day at my office at the university, my secretary buzzed: “It’s a reporter from CNN. He wants your comment on someone who died.”

My heart sank.

I met William Pierce in 1997 when I contacted him proposing that I write a book about him. After a series of written and in-person exchanges, he agreed to cooperate with the project and I wrote the book, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds: An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce. The title comes from a Norse poem that was a favorite of Dr. Pierce’s:

Cattle die, and kinsman die,
And so one dies oneself;
One thing I know that never dies:
The fame of a dead man’s deeds.

The point of the poem is that the only immortality that is real is the memory among the living of what we did with our lives. To me, it was an apt title because Dr. Pierce very much lived for posterity: in particular, the future generations of his people, White people, who he hoped would benefit from his actions in life and remember his accomplishments. That he was living for history and not just for this time gave his life meaning and thrust, and strengthened his ability to stand up to both attacks from his natural adversaries and criticism of him from some elements within the White racialist movement itself. For the book, he and I agreed that I would spend a month at his property in West Virginia. Besides getting a general sense of what his life was like, I would conduct a series of audio-taped interviews with him. I met with him a couple of hours virtually every evening for that month and he recounted the story of his life and outlined his beliefs and discussed his activities. I found him entirely cooperative and candid.
He told me that he was born on September 11, 1933 in Atlanta, Georgia, and that he lived in Virginia, Alabama, and Texas growing up. He has a younger brother, Sanders. His father, who was in the insurance business, was killed in a car accident when he was eight. Money was tight for his mother and her two boys, but they got by. He attended public elementary schools and a private secondary military academy in Dallas, Texas. He did extremely well academically and was granted a scholarship to Rice University in Houston, where he majored in physics. After receiving his bachelor’s degree from Rice, he went on to do graduate work at Caltech and then the University of Colorado, where he was awarded a doctorate in physics. By the age of thirty-one, he was a tenured professor of physics at Oregon State University. This was the mid-1960s. Along the way, he had married and become the father of twin sons.

Dr. Pierce had been on the fast track. He had attained a highly coveted position in a university, and thirty-one is young to have achieved tenured status, which amounts to job security for life. But instead of settling in for the long haul as a university teacher and researcher, he began to raise questions about the meaning and purpose of his life the answers to which were to alter drastically the course of his life, including leaving his university position and the field of physics. “I had an awareness of my mortality from a very early age,” he told me, “and so it seemed to me that I shouldn’t waste my life doing things that weren’t truly important.” He began a process of study, observation, and reflection directed at answering the question of what he should do with his time on earth.

George Bernard Shaw
 Arguably the most formative action he took during those Oregon State years was to buy a set of phonograph records that he listened to again and again. They were of a play by George Bernard Shaw called Don Juan in Hell. Don Juan in Hell is actually act three of a longer play first produced in 1905 called Man and Superman, but it is often presented as a separate play. In Don Juan in Hell, the central character in the play, Jack Tanner, has a dream in which he is transformed into the fifteenth-century nobleman Don Juan and another character in the play is transformed into the Devil. This sets up what amounts to a debate between the two men about what life ought to be about, Don Juan’s version of heaven or the Devil’s version of hell. When the antagonists talk about heaven and hell, it is clear they are using them as metaphors for ways of being in this life here on earth.

Dr. Pierce cites listening to the Shaw play as a turning point in his life. He internalized the perspective and ideals put forth by Don Juan: A disdain for the shallowness and misguidedness of contemporary life. The ideal of seeking a grand purpose to direct one’s life. The concept of serving the Life Force as the organizing principle of one’s life. (The idea of the Life Force is that there is a forward-moving stream of Life — an entity of sorts that transcends all particular living things — seeking somewhat blindly to achieve complete self-understanding and the full realization of its potentiality. A servant of the Life Force, a term Dr. Pierce used often, devotes his mind and body to supporting that process.) The focus on improving the race (Don Juan refers to “the great purpose of breeding the race”). The view of life as a struggle against powerful opposing forces. The Jew as adversary (the Devil in the play is a Jew). The virtue of steadfastness, holding firm, staying the course. And there is the idea at least tacit in the play that women, love, and family get in the way of men achieving their true purposes in life.

A second major influence on Dr. Pierce was the ideology of National Socialism. The key principles here: The preservation and enhancement of the race is the first priority in individual and collective life, along with the assumption that pursuing that end will involve struggle and sacrifice. The “aristocratic principle,” which underscores that there are qualitative differences among individuals and races. The concern that the Aryan race will be reduced biologically and culturally. The view that Jews are Whites’ chief antagonists: that they seek to subdue nature rather than live according to its precepts; undermine the aristocratic principle by promoting democracy, replacing wisdom and power and strength with the dead weight of mass numbers; gain a stranglehold on finance and commerce and the political process to serve their own interests; contribute to cultural decay by ridiculing traditional ethics and morality, mocking religion, undercutting national loyalty, and contaminating the arts and mass entertainment; and work to destroy the White race by promoting miscegenation.

A third major influence on Dr. Pierce during the Oregon State years was the example of Adolf Hitler. Apart from the fact that Hitler personified the ideals of National Socialism, Dr. Pierce was inspired by the fact that Hitler had transcended so many personal limitations to achieve what he did: “In 1918 Hitler was in a military hospital blinded from a British poison attack,” he pointed out. “He was just a corporal, he had no family, a limited education, no friends, no connections. A wounded war veteran with nobody to help him, and he pulled it up just through his own willpower. That is an amazing story.” Dr. Pierce saw himself as a limited man — in particular in social skills and public speaking ability — and Hitler’s life showed him that personal limitations don’t have to hold you back. Despite personal obstacles, you can take your life seriously and root it in a grand purpose related to the well-being of the race and give everything you have in you and accomplish great things.

I was with Dr. Pierce when he visited Berchtesgaden in Germany, where Hitler lived. He was visibly moved by the experience and said very little during the day. He would walk off on his own seemingly lost in reverie as we toured the underground tunnels under what was once Hitler’s home and the other sites. I had the impression that this was a very emotional time for him. I gave him a videotape I had purchased of newsreel footage of Hitler in these locations and he was clearly touched.

The 1960s was a time of the civil rights revolution and the anti-Vietnam War movement. The civil rights struggle was being billed as being about freedom and social justice, but Dr. Pierce saw it as fundamentally about culture and White racial survival: “This was going to result in Black culture having a much bigger effect on White culture than it had had,” he told me, “and it was going to lead to greater numbers of interracial marriages and racially mixed children.” As for the anti-war activity, he took note of the power of the media and those who control them: “Back in World War II the government didn’t have to worry about public opinion because all the major propaganda instruments — the motion picture industry, the big newspapers, and so on, controlled by Jews it so happened — liked the war a lot.” He concluded that Jews used anti-war activities as a tool for social upheaval and to promote a Marxist worldview, which Dr. Pierce adamantly opposed.

What to do: He attended a few meetings of an anti-communist group called the John Birch Society but found them unwilling to focus on the issues he saw as central — race and Jews — and didn’t return. He wrote letters to public figures asking them what they saw as the best way to deal with the civil rights and anti-war movements. One of them was George Lincoln Rockwell, the commander of the American Nazi Party he formed and headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. Rockwell was a tall, slim, dark-haired, good-looking, charismatic man in his mid-forties at the time. He displayed an assertive and brash public persona, affected a dashing, rakish image with a corncob pipe, dressed in stormtrooper garb, and approached things with a showbiz touch. Rockwell wrote a dozen-page response to Dr. Pierce’s inquiry.
George Lincoln Rockwell
While attending a physics meeting in Washington, Dr. Pierce met with Rockwell. The two men related well, and soon afterward Dr. Pierce, with his family, moved to the Arlington area to serve, in effect, an apprenticeship under Rockwell. Dr. Pierce’s connection with Rockwell was the beginning of the race-oriented work that would occupy him for the remainder of his life. “I was learning a lot about people and how things worked, interactions with the government, and things like that.” He told me that one of his jobs in those days was to carry money to demonstrations for bailing out those who were arrested. With Rockwell’s help, Dr. Pierce started a journal, National Socialist World, his first publishing venture. Rockwell was assassinated in 1967.

“Rockwell was courageous and honest and he didn’t have an ego problem,” Dr. Pierce told me. “So many people are terrified of taking an unpopular stand, but not Rockwell. He wasn’t afraid to stick his neck out and get vilified and beaten up. I admired that. But he was this flamboyant showman, that was his style, and I had problems with that. If you put on a show as he was doing, calling yourself the American Nazi party and waving swastika banners around in front of the White House, if you come on with an incendiary approach, most level-headed people are going to be hesitant to get involved with that kind of circus. Rockwell had gathered around himself a group of people who for the most part were quite defective in one way or another. I thought to myself, ‘I couldn’t put up with this. I’ve got to have normal, moral, capable people around me if I am ever going to get something done.’ That was the most important lesson I took from Rockwell: do things in a way that will attract the kind of people you can work with.” This lesson has guided his approach from the time he began operating his own organization in 1970, the National Youth Alliance, later to be called the National Alliance, until his death.

I have speculated that one legacy of the Rockwell association thirty-five years ago was Dr. Pierce’s speaking style and heated rhetoric on his weekly radio programs. I have been with him when he recorded a broadcast and, at least to my ears, when the red light came on he immediately went from being mature, sober, and rather kindly to somewhat shrill, strident, and marginal-sounding. A couple of times I suggested that he consider being a little calmer on the air. In one program, he referred to then-president Clinton as 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.” I said, “Don’t you think that is a little over the top?” He replied that he had to grab people’s attention and that strong language like this is a way to reach his audience. He might have been right about all of it — including about Clinton and what to do about him, for that matter — but I still found myself thinking, “Rockwell lives.”

Another fateful encounter for Dr. Pierce was a lunch meeting in Washington in 1974 with a classics professor from the University of Illinois with the palindromic name (spelled the same backwards and forwards) Revilo P. Oliver. Dr. Pierce told Oliver that he was having trouble getting a response from people to the message he was trying to get across. “What about getting your message across through popular fiction?” suggested Oliver. The result was The Turner Diaries, written as installments in the tabloid ATTACK! and then self-published in 1978. The Turner Diaries consists of the diary entries of one Earl Turner, a rank-and-file member of a band of White American revolutionaries who successfully overthrow the corrupt federal government. The conflict then spreads worldwide and a White government comes to control the world on the “Great One’s” (Hitler’s) birthday in 1999. The book has been remarkably successful, with a half million readers or more, and in many quarters Dr. Pierce and the book have become virtually synonymous. Dr. Pierce wrote one other novel, Hunter, published in 1989, which describes the exploits of Oscar Yeager, who seeks to cleanse America and relieve his own internal pressures and frustrations by killing first interracial couples and then Jews. Dr. Pierce viewed both books as vehicles for “getting my messages across.
Speaking at a leadership conference
In 1985, Dr. Pierce moved to a 346-acre plot of land near Hillsboro, West Virginia. He spent the last seventeen years of his life there building the Alliance, which increased significantly in membership and influence. He held, first, yearly conferences and then, in recent years, biannual weekend leadership conferences for promising members. Beginning in 1997, he took over the weekly half-hour radio program, American Dissident Voices, when its originator, Kevin Strom, went on hiatus. ADV became an influential and personally rewarding undertaking during the last five years of Dr. Pierce’s life. Through the radio program itself, the posting of its transcript on the Alliance web site, and its reprint in the publication Free Speech, it is estimated that his words reached 100,000 or more people each week. In 2000, he purchased moribund Resistance Records, a company that distributes White-pride and -power music and publishes Resistance magazine devoted to that scene. “We want young, alienated White Americans,” he wrote at the time of the acquisition, “to understand why they are alienated and to have a positive goal for which they can work and fight instead of being filled with undirected and often self-destructive rage.” From all reports, Resistance Records has been highly successful as a vehicle for reaching young people.

In a cavern in West Virginia, 1984
A few weeks after Dr. Pierce’s death, I took a walk alone on the West Virginia property. I walked past the two-story headquarters building, the new building housing Resistance Records, and the meeting hall under construction that will seat 400 people. I thought back to him telling me of when he first moved onto the property and arranged for a used trailer to be hauled in (he lived in this modest, low-ceilinged dwelling for the rest of his life). I thought of how much this man had created from the time back in 1970 when all he had was himself and something called the National Youth Alliance, which was just him, really. I recalled his description of how in the beginning he would sleep on a couch in his office and get by on fifty dollars a week. I thought about how this man had left a tenured faculty position at a university to do this, and I thought about all the people whose lives he had touched so deeply, including my own. Truly remarkable, truly exemplary.

I have been prompted by his death to reflect on what stood out to me about William Pierce the man, as well as the impact he has had on me personally.

Of course, there was his intelligence. Simply, he was the brightest person I’ve ever been around. I found it stunning the way he could sift through details, distractions, and surface realities and get to the essence of a concern. And the way he could immediately retrieve something he had read or experienced years ago and bring it to bear on some matter at hand. And he was so incredibly fast. I remember marveling at how quickly he typed out his radio broadcast once he decided what he wanted to say. When I was around him, I thought, “This is what those physicists in Los Alamos during World War II building the atomic bomb must have been like.”

And there was his character. I found him to be a man of great integrity; there was the tightest fit imaginable between what he most deeply believed and the way he conducted his life. He had enormous commitment and dedication and perseverance. Day after day, year after year, decade after decade, he marched on. And he had courage. He put himself on the line. He went public; he used his own name. And he was incredibly hard working: twelve and fourteen hour days, seven days a week. He would munch on caffeine tablets and candy (evidently for the sugar charge) to get himself through the day, but on and on and on he would go.

And he was kind and compassionate. Perhaps because it seemed in such contrast with the way people tended to perceive him, I was particularly taken by how gentle and caring he was with Alliance members who would call or come to see him about some issue they had. An incident involving me comes to mind: Researching the book involved my attendance at a leadership conference and Dr. Pierce asked me to speak to those in attendance about what was going on in education. I worked hard on my talk, but about five or ten minutes into it I realized that what I had put together wasn’t working at all. “I’m messing up his meeting,” I thought to myself. “He must be really put off.” I avoided looking at him sitting in the front row. I struggled along and it was getting worse not better. Finally, I glanced over at him, and rather than pique or anger was a look of warmth and support. At that moment, he cared about me, not the meeting. I will never forget it.

And there were things Dr. Pierce wasn’t. He wasn’t ironically detached, cynical, or petty. I have gotten so used to people being one thing publicly and another thing privately. It wasn’t a hustle for him; he was for real. And I am so used to hearing people put others down behind their backs. I spent hours upon hours with Dr. Pierce, often at the end of a long day when he was winding down. I never heard him denigrate an Alliance member or someone who worked with him. He didn’t gossip. He respected people. He was, and this has become as big a compliment as I can make about someone, a sincere man.

 In the workshop
Dr. Pierce could be very shy and reticent. I think of a dinner he and I had with a young married couple. It wasn’t long into the meal and I started getting annoyed that he had removed himself from the occasion and left it to me to carry the evening with the two guests. As time went along and he still sat there silently, annoyance turned to anger — I was outright mad at him. At one point, I turned to glare at him, and I was quickly brought up short because there he sat looking shrunken and vulnerable. I realized that he hadn’t bailed out; he simply couldn’t think of what to say. At that moment, I felt great affection for him.

He was very sensitive. In Europe at a German nationalist party rally, he was being slandered by a British political activist. Despite my attempts to make the point to him that that kind of thing comes with being a public figure, I was taken with just how hurt he was by what was being alleged about him. I saw that, indeed, it wasn’t that he was so tough that things didn’t get to him. Things got to him all right, but he plugged on anyway in spite of it.

And last, he was joyful. Dr. Pierce loved life. He was light and cheerful, far from the stern figure that so many think of him as being. To him, life was to be relished, not endured, and he relished it. He smiled throughout his seemingly endless workdays. I never once heard him complain about his work or responsibilities. From all I could see, he was a happy man. He left us too early, but at least in my time with him, he certainly cherished and enjoyed life while he had it.

I feel compelled to talk about what is widely perceived as Dr. Pierces’s failings in his personal life. His first marriage ended in divorce, as did subsequent marriages, including, just before he died, his last one. It is easy enough to criticize him for not achieving a better balance between the personal and public dimensions of his life, and there is some validity in that criticism. But then again, I was around his last marriage. Could he have done more to make it work? I suppose. But do I think that it had the potential for being much more than it was? In truth, no. And I think about how he phoned his wife every night from Germany to see how she was.

I have come to think that people who have “it” — a very special artistic talent or political talent or intellectual talent, whatever it is — may need to play by different rules than the rest of us. Perhaps the way for people like that to be good for the world and to achieve peace and fulfillment for themselves is not to live a balanced life of work and love and friendship and play. Rather, it may be that their way forward is to do “it” with all they have, to focus their energies on that. Indeed, Dr. Pierce had “it,” and more and more I’m convinced that he lived his life in alignment with his particular reality.

I am coming to realize the great impact Dr. Pierce has made on my own life. So much more than before I knew him, I am aware of my own finiteness and the need to do what is truly important and lasting in whatever time I have left. So much more than before, I am committed to live publicly and fully as the person I really am. I won’t be silent or controlled by fear, not now, not after knowing him. I seek to live with the courage he demonstrated. I want, in my own unique way, to live as he lived, as an honorable White man. Dr. Pierce was an honorable White man.

On the last day of my month-long stay with Dr. Pierce on his property in West Virginia, I asked him how he would like to be remembered after his passing. He replied, “I truly believe that my race, the White race, is in jeopardy. I’m not saying tomorrow or next year, but if you think in terms of a century or two — a blip in history, really — we are threatened. Especially in this country. I believe we need to re-establish a place for ourselves, on this land, where we can breed true once again, and live our way once again. I want to contribute to that. I don’t want to be a man who marches in step and can’t face being accused of being a racist or harboring anti-Semitic attitudes, or who is unwilling to pay a personal price for doing what he thinks is right. I want to be more independent than that and more courageous than that. I would love to be around a thousand years from now but I won’t be, so I accept the next best thing: the possibility that my people will remember the little bit I contributed to their salvation during a critical period in our history.”

We’ll remember, Dr. Pierce.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Book Proves Hitler Saved the West

Book Review
From National Vanguard magazine, Issue No. 115, November-December, 1995: 


By Victor Suvorov (translated from the Russian by Thomas B. Beattie). Published by Hamish Hamilton (London, 1990).

Western Europe, Fall 1941: The Red Army sweeps on from Germany and France toward Italy and Spain. Everywhere the NKVD imposes the bloody terror already suffered by the tortured nations of the East. Political opponents, former army officers, shopkeepers, landowners, small farmers, members of youth movements and cultural associations -- millions are rounded up. The fortunate ones are shot, many more die horribly in the blood-splattered basements of Communist interrogation centers. The rest join the endless columns shuffling to the Siberian Gulag. Only the prettiest girls are kept behind for now.

[T]he Talmudic admonition that "the best of the goyim must be destroyed" is taken literally by their new masters

The lower ranks of the new Red puppet administrations consist mainly of criminals and perverts, but everywhere the key posts are dominated by Jews. Too late the peoples of Europe learn that the Talmudic admonition that "the best of the goyim must be destroyed" is taken literally by their new masters.

How close this nightmare came to becoming reality is revealed in Russian military Viktor Suvorov's definitive account of the buildup to Operation Groza ("Thunderstorm"), The Red Army's massive assault on Germany and the rest of Europe scheduled to begin on July 6, 1941.

Icebreaker details the huge scale of the long preparations to attack "the imperialist powers." In 1939, for example, when Hitler had a total of 4,000 paratroopers ready to seize key points ahead of an advance, Stalin had more than one million. Soviet tank production dwarfed that of the rest of the world put together, but the majority of the tanks were capable of effective operation only on the good roads of western Europe and were worthless when forced onto the defensive in the backward wastes of Russia. Soviet pilots were totally untrained in aerial combat, since the German Luftwaffe was to be destroyed on the ground on Day 1.

In the event, as the Chief of the General Staff Academy of the Armed Forces of the USSR, General S.P. Inanov, admitted in 1974, "The Nazi command succeeded in forestalling our troops literally two weeks before the war began." This was why the advancing German Wehrmacht found millions of Russia's best troops crowded together with huge supplies of ammunition and fuel in defensible positions right on the frontier.

[T]his book proves that Adolf Hitler saved the West.

Suvorov shows clearly how Stalin came within fourteen days of taking this key step along the path to Bolshevizing the world. "But Hitler guessed Stalin's design. That is why WWII ended catastrophically for Stalin. He only got half of Europe, and some places here and there in Asia."

Regardless of the abuse heaped on him by the media and the court historians, this book proves that Adolf Hitler saved the West.