By Dr. William Pierce

"A time-honored saying is , "All is fair in love and war." Certainly,
it seems a reasonable saying and one in accord with Nature. It
expresses the fact that when at war even otherwise honorable men
resort to trickery, deceit, and outright lying. In a strictly personal
conflict a man may feel obliged by his sense of honor to be truthful;
at least, it used to be that way before we got so much democracy and
multiculturalism, and we still had some understanding of the concept
of personal honor. But when a nation or a race is at war, and survival
depends upon victory-or at least, upon avoiding defeat-a man must
think of more than his personal honor; he must put the survival of his
people above all else, and he must do whatever is necessary to win.

It's stretching things a bit, however, when we lie in order to make
our job of beating up someone much smaller and weaker a little easier
for us. When our government lies not because it's a matter of national
survival but just for the sake of convenience, that should be
troubling for all of us. That's the case of our propaganda war in
Afghanistan, for example. We drop leaflets with doctored photographs
and lies all over the place, in order to turn the people against their
former Taliban leaders and Osama bin Laden.

Well, lying is the way of democrats and multiculturalists-and that
includes Republicans-but I question whether or not it really makes our
job easier. We air-dropped leaflets on Afghanistan with a phony
photograph of Osama bin Laden wearing a Western suit and with his
beard shaved and his hair cut short and announced that he had given up
the fight so that he could escape to a life of luxury and ease in the
West. That really didn't fool anyone, and it was a completely
unnecessary lie. Then a little later Mr. Bush produced a video tape
that he claimed had been found in an al-Quaida hideout and showed
Osama bin Laden confessing, in effect, to the September 11 attack.
Should we be surprised when Muslims all over the Middle East don't
believe Bush and denounce the video tape as phony?

The fact is that politicians are so accustomed to lying about
everything that they don't even stop to consider the consequences of
their lies. If a lie seems more convenient than the truth at any
moment, they lie- and not just to little people they're beating up at
the moment. American politicians will lie just as readily to their
fellow Americans as they will to Afghans or Pakistanis. And one can
hardly blame them, because the American people have come to expect it
of them and don't seem to hold it against them. Teddy Kennedy murdered
his girlfriend Joann Kopechne and lied outrageously about it, and yet
he's still in the U.S. Senate today. Bill Clinton lied outrageously
about nearly everything, and the voters reelected him.

And as I said, it's not just Democratic politicians. George Bush may
not be as skillful a liar as Bill Clinton, but he's just as much a
liar. That's the democratic way-with a small "d." We live in a
culture of lies, a culture shaped for us by the controlled mass media,
in which lying not only is acceptable, it is required whenever it
helps the cause of Political Correctness. Consider the current
twittering in New York about the 19-foot bronze statue being erected
in honor of the city's firemen. The statue is based on a news
photograph of three New York firemen raising an American flag, Iwo
Jima style, on a mound of rubble at the site of the former World Trade
Center. The three firemen who raised the flag are all White men, as
are 94 per cent of New York City's firemen, and the Whiteness of the
firemen raising the flag can be seen quite clearly in the news
photograph.

Well, that's a Politically Inconvenient fact, and so the 19-foot
statue based on the photograph will show one Negro fireman, one
mestizo fireman, and one White fireman raising the flag. Naturally,
the White firemen who actually raised the flag on the rubble were not
happy when they saw the multicultural model for the statue, and
neither were many of their fellow White firemen.

Tough luck. I suspect that the media bosses, the politicians, and the
Jewish businessmen who favor the multicultural statue will have their
way, and groups of schoolchildren who are shown the statue will be
told that it's an actual depiction of the flag-raising. I'm surprised
they didn't include a female fireman and an Asian fireman helping to
raise the flag and show a couple of gay firemen fondling each other in
the background.

Perhaps it's unfair of me to put too much blame on politicians and
Jewish businessmen for this sort of lying and distortion of reality
for the sake of Political Correctness. Gentile businessmen seem about
as willing to lie as Jewish businessmen. Jesse Jackson, the Black
rabble rouser, con man, and extortionist whose empire seems to be
collapsing now, made a very good living for many years by persuading
businessmen- most of them Gentiles-to lie about race for him. With the
Jewish media backing him, Jackson would threaten White businessmen
with Black boycotts unless they multiculturalized their operations to
his satisfaction-and kicked in a nice, big payoff to Jesse himself.
Jesse would demand that the White businessmen hire Black executives,
picture Blacks in their advertising, and subcontract to Black-owned
businesses.

Instead of standing up to Jackson and calling him an extortionist,
virtually all of the White businessmen decided it would be cheaper to
pay him off, make the changes in personnel and advertising and
subcontracting he demanded, and pretend that they liked it. They paid
for advertising showing White women cuddling up to Black men in order
to please Jesse and pretended that they were doing this of their own
free will. They wanted everyone to know that they were on the
multicultural bandwagon. To me, this is at least as bad as the sort of
lying the politicians do.

And the Gentile academics and publicists are just as crooked these
days. There was a bit of nervous twittering among academic historians
last month when a supposedly scholarly study of firearms ownership in
18th-century America by an Emory University history professor, Michael
Bellesiles, turned out to be fraudulent. Bellesiles claimed to have
studied thousands of 18th-century probate records and found that very
few American families-fewer than 10 per cent-actually owned firearms
in the 18th century; therefore, the legislators who wrote the Second
Amendment obviously didn't intend to guarantee the right of
individuals to keep and bear arms, just militias. Well, that pleased
the nutcase feminist gun-control crowd, but as it turned out,
Bellesiles had faked it. Professional historians professed
embarrassment and outrage over Bellesiles' chicanery, but what
Bellesiles did in trying to scuttle the Second Amendment is quite
innocuous compared to the fraud committed by thousands of other
professional historians, who don't have to worry about being called to
account for their deceit.

I'm talking about the historians of the Second World War and related
subjects, such as the so-called "Holocaust." Every academic historian
worth his salt understands that nearly all the histories of the Second
World War are fraudulent through commission, omission, or both, yet
almost none of these historians will challenge the fraud in the way
Bellesiles' work has been challenged. Why is that?

The reason is that Jews as a whole have a vested interest in the
fraudulent version of the war and of the "Holocaust." Anyone who
questions even the smallest detail of the fraud is attacked viciously
as a-quote-"Holocaust denier" or a-quote-"Nazi sympathizer." In the
case of gun control, nearly all Jews are for it, but they don't have
the vested interest in it that they have in the "Holocaust" and a
number of other myths about the Second World War. So it is still
permissible to be objective in writing about the history of firearms
ownership in America-but it is not permissible to write or teach
anything contrary to revealed dogma about the Second World War. Even
the historians who aren't partisans of the Jews and who don't want to
lie don't have the courage to be truthful.

Imagine that a history professor is teaching his students 20th-century
history, and to avoid violating any taboos he teaches the approved,
"kosher" version. He teaches that in the years prior to the Second
World War the Germans wanted the Jews out of Germany, but he doesn't
explain why. He doesn't talk about what the Jewish commissars were
doing to Russians and Ukrainians in the Soviet death camps. He doesn't
mention the murder of millions of kulaks by the communists, and he
doesn't mention the extraordinarily high percentage of Jews in the
Soviet bureaucracy and in the Soviet secret police and among the
administrators of the Soviet death camps. He doesn't tell his students
that while these things were kept quiet by the media in the United
States, the media in Germany talked openly about them, and the German
people were aware of how the Jews had turned on the helpless Gentiles
under communist rule and butchered them by the millions. He leaves his
students with the impression that the German desire to get the Jews
out of Germany was entirely irrational or was based on jealousy of
Jewish wealth and success.

When he talks about the year preceding Pearl Harbor, he is not likely
to mention that the Roosevelt government was so hot to get the United
States involved in the war against Germany at the behest of the Jews
that the United States was waging undeclared war against Germany in
the Atlantic, hoping for an "incident" that could be used as a pretext
for full-scale hostilities, but that the German Navy was under strict
orders not to respond to U.S. provocations, or that when the Pearl
Harbor attack came it was more of a surprise to the Germans than it
was to the war party in the Roosevelt government, which previously had
broken the Japanese naval code. He leaves his students with the
impression that the United States wanted only peace, and the Germans
wanted only to wage war against us in their mad campaign to conquer
the world.

When he talks about the behavior of the various combatants during the
war, he is likely to follow the Jewish party line and paint the
Germans as barbarians who committed more atrocities than anyone else,
and to paint the Jews as the principal victims of the war. He may not
feel obliged to repeat all of the more fanciful Jewish lies, such as
Jews being skinned by the Germans to make lampshades and then boiled
down to make soap, but he certainly will not describe these lies for
what they are, and he will not challenge the central myth of "six
million" innocent, blameless Jews killed in "gas ovens" by the wicked
Nazis. He will skim lightly over the genocide committed by the Soviets
against the Germans, the Poles, the Balts, and other nationalities
during and after the war, and he will not even hint at the leading
role played by the Jews in this genocide. He is likely to leave his
students believing the oft-repeated lie that the so-called "Holocaust"
was the greatest crime ever committed.

Is such a history professor less culpable than the most mendacious
politician? I think not. And what about the professor of biology or
anthropology who, knowing of the profound differences in mentality, in
psychology, in inborn behavioral patterns that separate the races,
lets his students use a textbook that asserts the sameness of the
races and fails to point out this lie? Should he be forgiven for
betraying the trust placed in him simply because he wants to keep his
job?

As I said, we live in a culture of lies. It's not just the politicians
and the businessmen and the teachers and the news reporters who lie to
us: it's everyone to whom the Jews have a string tied, and that means
most people involved in shaping the popular culture: advertisers and
entertainers and editors and publishers and writers and the rest.
Here's an example: the February issue of Playboy magazine has been on
the newsstands for a couple of weeks now. There's an article in the
magazine titled "Virtual Reich," with a subhead that reads, and I
quote: "Fascism is back, featuring a strange cast of Islamic
fundamentalists, skinheads, and homegrown terrorists. Here's the
sinister part: they're all talking to one another."-end of quote-

It's a trashy article in a trashy magazine, but It mentions me at
length, and that was my reason for choosing it as an example. And with
a circulation of more than 3 million copies each month and probably
half again that many readers, Playboy does have a significant role in
the popular culture. The article is almost entirely make-believe. It
has a few quotations from things I've written, a few quotations from
other people, most of whom I've never met or even corresponded with,
and then it throws us all into one pot and stirs us up as if we're
part of a giant, worldwide, terrorist conspiracy: me along with Muslim
fundamentalists, German and English nationalists, anti-abortionists,
Tim McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski, nutcase Christian millennialists,
environmental activists, and elderly SS veterans-just about everyone
the Jews don't like. It's not only the basic theme of the article that
is wrong-claiming one giant conspiracy where there is none-but the
details are chock full of errors too. It's clear that no one bothered
to check the article for accuracy.

But of course, no one really cared about truthfulness or accuracy in
this article: certainly not the publisher or any of Playboy's editors
or the author, Mike Reynolds, who used to write for the Southern
Poverty Law Center, the ultra-sleazy Jewish propaganda outfit run by
direct-mail fundraising huckster Morris Dees. The purpose of the
article was to frighten America's Joe Sixpacks and Sally Soccermoms,
to send a cold shiver down their spines with the specter of all the
bad guys who want to throw a crimp into their mall shopping and
ballgame watching, ganging up on them. If you can scare them more
easily by lying, then lie. That's the American spirit these days. The
politicians lie, the teachers and professors lie, the media people
lie, the businessmen lie, the magazine writers lie, and for the most
part the American people don't care. Just keep those shopping malls
well stocked and keep plenty of ball games on TV, and they don't care.
It's the acquiescence of the American people in all of this lying,
rather than the liars themselves, that convinces me that the end times
are near. At least, I hope so.

You know, a few minutes ago I mentioned that before the Second World
War the Germans wanted to get the Jews out of their country, and I
told you part of the reason for that. The Germans saw what the Jews
were doing to the Russians and the Ukrainians, and they didn't want to
give the Jews a chance to do the same thing to them. From the end of
the First World War in 1918 until 1933, there was combat in the
streets of Germany's cities between the communists, whose leadership
was heavily Jewish, and the Nazis. There was a real danger that the
communists would win and take over Germany the way they had taken over
Russia. And the German people also knew the role the Jews had had in
bringing the United States into the First World War, causing Germany's
defeat, and leaving the country open to the possibility of a communist
takeover.

But these weren't the only reasons the Germans wanted to be rid of the
Jews. The Jews were very influential in Germany after the First World
War. They were strongly entrenched in the legal profession, in
banking, in advertising and merchandising, in show business, in
organized vice, in publishing and other media. They were trying hard
to change the spirit of Germany. They were pushing modernism in art,
music, and literature. They were pushing for "diversity" and
"tolerance." They were ridiculing German tradition and culture and
morality and the German sense of personal honor, trying hard to make
young Germans believe that it was "cool" to be rootless and
cosmopolitan. They were promoting the same culture of lies that they
have been promoting here.

That was the so-called "Weimar" period, because right after the First
World War some important government business, including the
ratification of a new German constitution, took place in the city of
Weimar. The Jews loved the Weimar period, but it was, in fact, the
most degenerate period in Germany's history. The Jews, of course,
didn't think of it as degenerate. They thought of it as "modern" and
"progressive" and "cool." Really, it was a very Jewish period, where
lying was considered a virtue. The Jews were riding high. Many books
have been written by Jews in America about Weimar Germany, all
praising it to the skies and looking back on it with nostalgia. Even
without the so-called "Holocaust," they never have forgiven the Nazis
for bringing an end to the Weimar period.

There was a Hollywood film made 30 years ago, in 1972, about Weimar
Germany. The film was called Cabaret, and it starred Liza Minelli. It
depicted Berlin night life, with all its degeneracy, including the
flourishing of homosexuality, and also depicted the fight between the
communists and the Jews and the other proponents of modernism on the
one hand and the Nazis on the other hand. The Hollywood filmmakers, of
course, were solidly on the side of the degenerates and portrayed the
Nazis as the bad guys, but this film is another example of the Jews
outsmarting themselves. The Jews who made the film saw everything from
their viewpoint, through their own eyes, and the degenerate Gentiles
under their spell also saw things from the Jewish viewpoint, but the
Jews apparently didn't stop to think-or didn't care-that a normal,
healthy White person would view things differently. Check it out for
yourself. Cabaret is still available in video stores.

The point I am making is this: In the 1920s, after the First World
War, the Jews were trying to do to Germany what they began doing to
America after the Second World War, in the 1960s. Many Germans, the
healthiest elements in Germany, resisted the Jews' efforts, just as
many Americans have resisted the Jews' efforts in America. In Germany
the Jews were a bit premature. Although they had much of the media
under their control, they didn't control all of the media. They tried
to move too fast. The healthiest Germans resisted and beat them.

In America, in the 1960s, the Jews had almost total media control
before they began their big push, and they proceeded more carefully.
In America they are winning. The culture of lies has prevailed in
America. It's still possible for Americans to win, but it's going to
be a lot tougher this time. We'd better get started. The first step is
to regain at least partial control of our media, so that we can begin
contradicting the lies. This American Dissident Voices broadcast is a
part of that first step.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html