This is a companion piece to "Woosteria! When marker-wielding racists rocked the College of Wooster, the hunt for justice was on."They fit together so well it would be a good idea to post them together.
Free Speech - January 2001 - Volume VII, Number 1
MTV and Hate
Three weeks ago I began telling you about a horrible mass murder and rape of young White people in Wichita, Kansas, by a couple of Blacks. The main point I emphasized in talking about this awful crime against our people was that the Jewish news media and the White liberals who collaborate with them -- the Clintonista types -- were deliberately covering up the news about it. It wasn't that they didn't think it was important; they knew it was important, and that's why they were covering it up. The people who should have been reporting to you every detail of what happened in Wichita weren't saying a word about it. They were hoping you wouldn't learn about it. And so I told you about what happened in Wichita, and I explained to you why the Jewish media bosses didn't want you to know about it.
by Dr. William Pierce
Of course, the massacre in Wichita wasn't the only newsworthy event being covered up by the Jewish media while I was talking to you about Wichita. I just decided to focus on Wichita, and I thought it likely that meanwhile news about some of the other crimes against our people would leak out through other media. Well, that didn't happen. The Jews successfully kept the lid on. And then last week one of the top Jewish media bosses, Sumner Redstone, owner of Viacom and MTV and Paramount and CBS, provoked me and made me decide that perhaps I really should talk more about the horrible things being done to our people by this multicultural society the Jews and their friends have forced on us.
First, the provocation. Actually MTV's regular programming is a nonstop provocation. Racial mixing is its persistent theme, the theme pushed day and night, week after week: all races and both sexes mixed together, gyrating and jerking and rapping to throbbing Negroid music. A few years ago I couldn't understand why any sane White parents would expose their kids to this filth. Now I have a better understanding of the lemming phenomenon. I understand that the majority of our people -- White people -- will do anything, no matter how disgusting or depraved or self-destructive, that they believe is fashionable. And I also have a better understanding of the way in which the Jews are able to use their control over the mass media of news and entertainment to create fashions and to corrupt our institutions, to corrupt our society, to corrupt a whole army of collaborators -- of businessmen, of actors and actresses, of spokesmen, of preachers and politicians and writers and teachers -- from our own people to help them with their filthy business. And let me tell you, when the day of reckoning comes, the punishment for all of these traitors, for all of those from among us who consciously and deliberately collaborated with the enemies of our people, for all of those White people who let their faces, their voices, their names be used to conceal the Jews who were paying them -- their punishment will be awful.
Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Last week MTV interrupted its regular fare of filth to present a special dose of brainwashing. The occasion was a big push for new "hate crime" and "speech crime" legislation. For two decades the Jews have been pushing harder and harder for more laws designed to control what we say and what we think. It was the largest of the Jewish pressure groups, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, which invented the concept of "hate crime" and took the lead in promoting it among law-enforcement people, the government, and the general public. The politicians were willing to go along, of course, but the Jews were having a hard time persuading the White public that people ought to be punished for what they said or for what they presumably were thinking when committing a crime instead of solely for what they did. This Jewish concept is contrary to our whole Western tradition of law, contrary to our whole sense of justice.
So the Jews decided to spend more time on propaganda, on brainwashing, to swing the public around. The first step, before continuing the push for more legislation to penalize speech and thought, was to get the public accustomed to the concept of "hate crime," to get them to accept this newly invented category of crime. And so they did two things. They began talking and writing about "hate crime" in all of their mass media. If you are able to search back issues of publications such as the New York Times or Time or Newsweek magazine, for the term "hate crime," you'll discover the term simply didn't exist before about 1985, and then suddenly it appeared in nearly every issue of these publications. The campaign to condition the public to think of "hate crime" and "speech crime" as recognized categories of crime was on -- and it was a planned, carefully designed campaign; it didn't just happen.
Then in April 1990 they pushed the Hate Crimes Statistics Act through the Congress, and President George Bush signed it into law. It merely required law enforcement agencies to keep track of crimes in which racial feelings or dislike of homosexuals might have been a factor. The aim really was not to gather statistics: it was to condition law enforcement people to accept the new categories of crime. And then actual legislation followed, mostly at the state level. What the Jews want now is greatly strengthened legislation, and they want it at the Federal level. That was the purpose of Sumner Redstone's special MTV programming last week. It consisted of hour after hour of recitations of supposed "hate crimes" -- assaults on Blacks, Asians, Jews, and homosexuals by heterosexual White males. The Jews who did the programming even threw in a few assaults on Whites by non-Whites, but the clear message of the programming was that "hate" is a White phenomenon and that most so-called "hate crimes" are committed by heterosexual White males.
The truth of the matter is that in the great majority of interracial assaults the victims are White, and the perpetrators are non-White. In virtually every interracial rape, for instance, the victim is White. And if you question whether or not hate is involved in these Black-on-White rapes, go to any library for a copy of Eldridge Cleaver's autobiographical book Soul on Ice and read what he has to say about it. Cleaver was a Black rapist who was a darling of the Jews and is described by them in obituaries as a "civil rights activist." Cleaver wrote:
I crossed the tracks and sought out White prey. I did this consciously, deliberately, willfully, methodically . . . . Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the White man's law . . . and that I was defiling his women . . . .
The facts of interracial crime are easy enough to determine from the crime statistics that were collected by the FBI long before the ADL's Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990 and are still collected and compiled every year and are available to the public from the Department of Justice in Washington as the Uniform Crime Reports. But the truth was not a consideration in last week's "hate crime" programming. Promoting a feeling of White guilt, morally disarming White viewers, was one of Mr. Redstone's considerations, and working up a feeling that we really do need new and stronger laws to keep those awful, hateful, heterosexual White males under control was another of his considerations.
So it was important to maintain the deception that in interracial crimes non-Whites and homosexuals are the victims and heterosexual White males are the perpetrators. That's why MTV told us once again about the dragging death of a Black convict in Jasper, Texas, and about the beating death of a homosexual in Laramie, Wyoming, but had not a word to say about the terrible interracial massacre in Wichita last month. And also not a word to say about many other recent and atrocious hate crimes, in which the victims were White.
For example, here's one I haven't told you about yet. Less than a month ago, on the evening of December 23, Vickie Lynn McGraw, left her Shreveport, Louisiana, home to visit friends. The 48-year-old White mother of two, former wife of a Shreveport police lieutenant, never made it to her friends' home. Two Blacks were loitering outside Mrs. McGraw's home, and as soon as she got into her car they rushed her, pointed guns at her, forced their way into her car, and drove off with her.
After that it was a familiar story. The Blacks drove her to an automatic teller machine and forced her to withdraw money. Then they beat, raped, and sodomized her. Finally, they threw her from her car, killed her by firing a bullet into the back of her head, and left her corpse in a roadside ditch, where a passerby found her on Christmas Eve morning. Meanwhile the two Blacks rounded up five more of our colored "equals," and they all went on a spending spree with Mrs. McGraw's credit cards.
It only took the Shreveport police and the local sheriff three days to round up the killers and their friends. And the local newspaper, the Shreveport Times, did report the matter diligently, with photographs of Vickie McGraw and of the sub-humans who raped and murdered her. The New Orleans newspaper, the Times-Picayune carried a very brief report of the murder, without photographs or any other clue as to the race of the victim or the murderers. And that's about it. Outside of Louisiana no one has heard about what happened to Vickie Lynn McGraw.
And she wasn't just some White welfare slut who hung around with Blacks, some piece of race-mixing White trash of the Nicole Brown Simpson category, of whom we could say that she got what she deserved. She was a decent, middle-class White woman, a wife and mother with whom literally millions of other White American women could identify and sympathize -- which is exactly why the Jewish media bosses blacked out the news about what happened to her. The last thing in the world they want is millions of decent White women sympathizing with Vickie McGraw, thinking about what happened to her, and then perhaps thinking about the whole business of multiculturalism and where it's taking us. If they think too much about Vickie McGraw, they may not take to heart the lesson of Sumner Redstone's special MTV programming on "hate crimes" last week.
I mean, really, if you are in the news business to make money, if you are simply a businessman, you grab a story like the Vickie McGraw story, and you make the most of it, because it is obvious that millions of Americans will be moved by it. But if your primary reason for being in the news business is to condition the public, to brainwash the public, then you have different considerations, don't you? If you're not just a media businessman who incidentally happens to be Jewish, but instead are a coldly calculating predator, working in conspiratorial concert with other predators whose aim, like yours, is to deceive and demoralize the White public, then you impose a blackout on stories like the Vickie McGraw story and the Wichita massacre story and every other story that doesn't fit your destructive, genocidal purpose.
Let's change the subject from Black-on-White crime for a moment and look at another aspect of Sumner Redstone's effort to sensitize the White public on the matter of "hate crime" and "speech crime." Some of the "hate crime" victims he listed in his special programming last week were homosexuals, most notably Matthew Shepard, the young sodomite who made the fatal error of trying to find a date in the wrong bar in Laramie, Wyoming, a couple of years ago. And just as he lied about interracial crime, trying to persuade us that Whites are the principal perpetrators and non-Whites the principal victims, he also lied about crimes involving homosexuals and heterosexuals, trying to make us believe that in nearly all such crimes the homosexuals are the victims, and heterosexuals are the perpetrators.
Do you remember the name John Wayne Gacy? He was a homosexual serial killer, the most prolific serial killer in America's history. Gacy handcuffed, raped, sexually tortured, and murdered 33 young men between 1972 and 1978, burying most of his victims in the crawl space under his house in Chicago. How about Jeffrey Dahmer? Is that name familiar? Dahmer took up where Gacy left off. Between 1978 and 1991 he murdered 16 boys and young men after drugging them and having sex with them. He then ate parts of their corpses and kept their heads and genitalia in his refrigerator for months. Gacy and Dahmer both received quite a bit of media publicity when they were caught, because that was before the current drive to cast homosexuals in the role of "victim" had gained much speed.
But during the Clinton era -- the 1990s -- the drive picked up a great deal of speed indeed. If you've been listening to my broadcasts for much more than a year you'll remember the name Jesse Dirkhising. I talked about him a couple of times in October 1999. He was the 13-year-old boy in Rogers, Arkansas, who was kidnapped by two homosexuals, tied up, drugged, and raped to death, on September 26, 1999. This horrible homosexual murder was totally blacked out by the Jewish media bosses outside of Arkansas. The Mathew Shepard beating death, which had occurred the previous year, was still receiving worldwide publicity, and any publicity about the murder of Jesse Dirkhising would have taken the steam out of the media publicity campaign about Mathew Shepard. And so the media bosses said not a word about little Jesse.
Perhaps I've made my point. If you go by the body count, the homosexuals have the heterosexuals beat by a wide margin. So why did Mr. Redstone try so hard to convince us otherwise? Well, in the first place, the very loose coalition that has long existed among most of the enemies of traditional White society -- Jews, feminists, racial minorities, liberals, and homosexuals -- became much tighter and better organized during the two Clinton administrations. Homosexuals have moved up in this coalition and now have achieved full "victim" status, alongside Jews, Blacks and other non-Whites. And in the second place, it serves their purpose of proving to the lemmings that heterosexual White males are dangerous "haters" who need to be disarmed and constrained by new laws.
Well, actually, from Mr. Redstone's point of view, there's more to it. Building public sympathy for homosexuals and giving them a special, legally protected status, serves to undermine further the morale, and to morally soften up, the society Redstone and his fellow tribesmen are busy devouring. Their current "hate crime" and "speech crime" campaign is not just to keep homosexuals from getting beaten up when they solicit in the wrong bars or from having their feelings hurt when some insensitive heterosexual makes a crude joke about them. There's a whole syndrome of more-or-less related social changes being pushed along with the acceptance of homosexuality: pedophilia, for example, and child pornography, which is very largely homosexual in nature. In my view, none of these changes is healthy; none of them is good for us. They're good only for the people who want to weaken us and to destroy us.
Some of the listeners I receive letters from take issue with that. They don't want to believe that this media campaign is malicious. They prefer to believe that it is based only on the liberalism of media people, who naturally sympathize with the underdogs and the outcasts, with the meek and the weak and the alien and the morally crippled. That means we're supposed to believe that Sumner Redstone and all of his high-priced employees at MTV and CBS and Paramount have never heard of the Justice Department's Uniform Crime Reports or the Wichita or Shreveport murders or John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer or the Jesse Dirkhising murder. We're supposed to think that they actually believe that Whites are more often the perpetrators of interracial assaults, and that homosexuals are gentle, inoffensive people.
Well, I'm sure that they don't actually believe those things. I'm sure that they consciously and deliberately manipulate the news with malice aforethought. They deliberately make the news fit the false picture of life they portray with their entertainment media. And they do it maliciously; they do it because they want to weaken and destroy us.
Despite the listeners who don't want to accept that conclusion, I believe that most of you agree with me on that point: namely, that the media bosses do know exactly what they're doing, that they do distort the news deliberately and deliberately cover up the news they don't want us to know about. That's really the only conclusion that a reasonable observer can draw from the evidence.
Many more listeners balk at accepting another conclusion of mine, and that is that it's not just a few evil Jewish media bosses deliberately distorting our news and producing films designed to encourage miscegenation and to persuade us that homosexuality is normal, and a few Jewish pressure groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center pushing for "hate crime" and "speech crime" legislation, but that it is the Jews as a whole who are doing these things. The Jewish media bosses and the Jewish pressure groups are doing their malicious and destructive work as a part of and on behalf of the Jewish community as a whole. Many listeners still don't want to believe that because they still think in a sort of fuzzy, feminine, subjective way. They focus on the individual exceptions, on the Jews here and there who more or less behave themselves, and these individual exceptions keep them from seeing the big picture.
Let me try to bring the big picture into a little better focus for these folks. I'm sure you've all heard about the controversy in the media over the refusal of the Boy Scouts to permit homosexuals to be Scout leaders. The media have portrayed this ban on homosexual Scout leaders as a case of intolerance, bigotry, hate, and so on. They have pooh-poohed the idea that homosexual Scout leaders might use their position to take advantage of the young boys in their care. Well, Boy Scout officials know better and have held to their refusal to let homosexuals be Scout leaders. So now the Clinton coalition types are increasing the pressure. I'll read you the beginning of a news report that was in the New York Times just ten days ago. The report, by Laurie Goodstein, is headed "Jewish Group Recommends Cutting Ties to Boy Scouts: A Protest Against the Ban on Gay Members."
I'm reading now from the January 10 issue of the New York Times, page A12:
Reform Jewish leaders are recommending that parents withdraw their children from membership in the Boy Scouts of America and that synagogues end their sponsorship of Scout troops, the strongest reaction yet by a religious group to the Supreme Court decision allowing the Boy Scouts to exclude gay members.
The report goes on to point out that Reform Judaism represents about 40 per cent of America's six million Jews. This declaration by the leaders of Reform Judaism is really just a media event, however, because practically no Jews are actually involved in the Boy Scouts, either as sponsors or as members. But it is a pretty good indicator that the Jewish community as a whole stands behind the Jewish media bosses, at least on this issue of trying to persuade us that homosexuals are "normal" and pose no danger to our society.
In future broadcasts we'll look at where the Jewish community as a whole stands on other policies promoted by the Jewish media bosses.