Subj: ADV1-30-98:Choosing a Barbie Doll
Date: 1/30/99 4:14:56 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: (American Dissident Voices)
To: (National Alliance)

American Dissident Voices Broadcast of January 30, 1999

Choosing a Barbie Doll
by Dr. William Pierce


Usually I like to deal with hard news on these programs: demographic
statistics which need to be brought to our attention, crime stories
which have been suppressed by the controlled media, unreported aspects
of the sleazy business of government in Washington, the names and doings
of the powerful men responsible for much of what's wrong in the world
today. I like to deal with facts -- facts that we can check for
ourselves, because credibility is such an important aspect of every
program, of everything we talk about. And the reason credibility is so
important to us is not that what we talk about is far-fetched or hard to
believe -- most of it is commonsense stuff clearly backed up by facts --
but what I tell you also runs directly against the way the public has
been conditioned to think these days. Much of what I say is not
Politically Correct, and for that reason much of the public is afraid of
it, terrified of it, doesn't want to believe it, will look for any
excuse not to believe it. So I try to make all of my conclusions very
hard for listeners to evade. I try to talk about things in a way that
people will be forced to believe them, whether they want to or not.

It took me a long time to accept the fact that there really are people
who don't want to know the truth. In fact, that is the case with the
majority of the public. Most people want to believe what makes them feel
safe and comfortable. Whether it's true or not really isn't important to
them. I mean no offense to women when I say this, but that always has
seemed to me to be an essentially feminine attitude: being more
concerned with the social acceptability of an idea than with its truth
or falsity. Yet that's the way most people, men as well as women, are
these days. We're living in an emasculated age.

You know, when I told you that people are terrified of Politically
Incorrect information, I wasn't exaggerating at all. The sponsor of this
program, National Vanguard Books, mails out its book catalogs to
thousands of people every month. The catalogs cost money, and so care is
taken to send them to people who will be interested in the books and
tapes described in them, but occasionally a catalog is received by a
person who is allergic to Politically Incorrect ideas. What often
happens then is that the recipient, instead of simply flipping through
the catalog, noting that it is nothing a Clinton booster would be
interested in, dropping it in the trash, and forgetting about it --
instead of this his heart begins racing and he breaks out in a cold
sweat. He thinks to himself, "Omigod, suppose the neighbors saw this
sticking out of my mailbox! They might think that I don't love our
President. They might think that I'm on the wrong side of his popularity
polls. They might even think that I'm some sort of racist or
anti-Semite, because there are books in here which are not at all
Politically Correct." And then, with his heart pounding and barely able
to breathe, he calls his lawyer.

I'm not kidding you: we receive certified letters, return receipt
requested, from lawyers demanding that we remove so and so's name from
our mailing list immediately and never send him anything again. How much
do think that cost the poor, frightened slob who received our catalog in
the mail? I don't know about your lawyer, but mine would charge a
hundred bucks to send out a certified letter like that for me. But there
are lots of Americans who are so terrified that other people will think
them Politically Incorrect that they're willing to pay. And despite the
example I just gave of the reaction of a Clinton booster receiving a
book catalog in the mail, there are anti-Clinton people who are just as

The real significance of this sort of frightened reaction by some people
to the National Vanguard Books catalog is not that there are people out
there whose ideas and opinions are different from mine. The significance
is the fear. I really believe that many -- perhaps even most -- of these
frightened people don't really have ideas or opinions at all. Ideas
aren't important to them, aren't real to them. What's important is being
accepted, fitting in, being approved. I think that's always been
important to most people. To women, in particular, it's always been more
important to be approved than to have a correct understanding of the
world around them. Today more men than ordinarily are behaving like
women in this regard. And the fear really is stronger and more
widespread than it used to be.

Let me share with you a really disgusting story I read last week. It was
published in the January 19 edition of the San Jose Mercury News. That's
San Jose, California. The writer, Katherine Corcoran, is a staff member
at the newspaper, a White woman, and she relates the soul-wrenching
experience she had after her seven-year-old daughter went to a San Jose
toy store with her aunt, looking for a Barbie doll. The little girl
wanted to take a White Barbie doll off the shelf, but there was a Black
Barbie doll in front of the White doll, so she moved the Black doll out
of the way to get to the White doll. And then it occurred to the
seven-year-old that she had just committed a "hate crime." She went home
to her mother in tears, confused and frightened, and asked her mother
whether moving the Black doll aside showed that she was -- quote --
"prejudiced." The girl's mother described all of this in the newspaper
story she wrote. She quotes her daughter: "In the toy store today,
Auntie let me pick out whatever Barbie I wanted. And I moved a Black
Barbie on the shelf out of the way to reach the White Barbie behind her.
Does that make me prejudiced?" And as I said, this was not a casual
question. The little girl was crying, terrified that she might actually
have shown herself to be "prejudiced."

And when the mother heard this question she herself froze in terror. She
didn't know how to answer the question. She was afraid to answer simply,
"No, dear, choosing the White doll instead of the Black doll doesn't
mean that you're prejudiced." She couldn't give that answer because it
would be dishonest. That answer would comfort her daughter at the
moment, but it might lead the little girl into relaxing her vigilance
and wandering even further down the path of Political Incorrectness. It
might, heaven forbid, reinforce her preference for White over Black.

On the other hand, if the mother answered the girl's question honestly
-- if the mother answered, "Yes, you vicious, little White racist, by
shoving aside the Black doll you revealed your horrible, racist
prejudice in favor of your own race" -- if her mother answered that way,
then her daughter might not be able to handle the psychic trauma. The
mother's own words in the newspaper were -- quote -- : "If I said yes, I
feared I would scar her self-image for life. Her eyes pleaded with me
not to confirm the worst." -- end of quote -- Believe it or not, that's
exactly what this silly woman wrote in the newspaper: "If I said yes, I
feared I would scar her self-image for life." And yet, the mother was
sure that "yes" was the honest answer, because she knew that all of us
Whites have the original sin of racism in us, a sin which we are obliged
to struggle all our lives to overcome and to pay all our lives in order
to atone for.

For the remainder of a long, hand-wringing article, the mother agonized
over how to deal with this terrible dilemma. The whole thing is
surrealistic, like the sort of dream one might have after falling asleep
with a really bad case of heartburn. But, unfortunately, that's the way
a great many Americans think these days. They really do get torn up over
such things as how to be sure that they are raising their children to be
both Politically Correct and self-contented.

The mother writing in the San Jose Mercury News relates the stories of
several other parents who encountered problems similar to her own. Not
one of these parents expresses anger toward those who brainwashed their
children to the point that any realization that they instinctively
prefer their own kind frightens them and makes them feel guilty. Not one
parent considers grabbing a shotgun and going out to hunt the media
bosses who did this to their children. Instead they all cringe and
grovel. The mother writing the story finally decides that what her
daughter needs is still more brainwashing -- more children's books full
of multiculturalism and diversity, more Steven Spielberg films, et
cetera. She coaxes her daughter to believe that the only reason she
reached for the White doll instead of the Black doll was not that the
White doll was the one she could identify with because it looked like
her, but that she liked the lipstick on the White doll more than the
lipstick on the Black doll. That rationalization made the mother and
daughter both feel much better. And then before the daughter could
backslide, the mother went out and bought her a Black Barbie doll, a
mestizo Barbie doll, an Indian Barbie doll, etc. The mother concludes:
-- quote -- "I decided if my daughter was going to play with Barbies .
. . they at least would be diverse. Her play world now includes Arab,
Native American, Latina, and African-American Barbies." -- end of quote
-- And that mother obviously feels quite proud of the way she dealt
with her daughter's problem. I felt sick after reading her story.

It's easy to think ahead eight years or so to the time when this woman's
daughter is in a racially integrated high school and begins dating. When
she has a choice between dating Black boys or White boys, she will
remember her mother's response to the Barbie doll dilemma. Her mother
undoubtedly will be proud of her when she brings her first Black
boyfriend home for dinner.

You know, there used to be a time when I thought that the only way we
could save our race and our civilization was to have a civil war and
shoot everyone who thought like that and then start over again with the
survivors. Of course, we still need a civil war -- there's no getting
around that -- but it won't be necessary to shoot everyone who feels
angst and guilt when his or her daughter opts for a White Barbie doll.
These people are not ideologically opposed to the survival of White
civilization. As I mentioned earlier, they don't have an ideology,
except to be Politically Correct, whatever that happens to be at the
moment. The people who need to be shot -- who must be shot -- are the
current arbiters of Political Correctness, the people who planned for
seven-year-old White girls to feel guilty if they revealed a preference
for White Barbie dolls. Shoot those, and the rest will adapt. They will
assimilate whatever attitudes and opinions are presented to them. That's
the way most people are. That's the way they've always been.

And the people who're like that are not just those with double-digit
IQs. Many of these people are quite bright and competent. Either they
were born feeling guilty about something, or they are susceptible to
having a guilt feeling implanted in them, which the arbiters of
Political Correctness then can manipulate. This is something which I
guess witch doctors and priests have understood since prehistoric times
and taken advantage of, which is why the concepts of guilt and
redemption play such a large role in many religions. Unfortunately, the
people who have wormed their way into our media of mass communication
and gotten a deathgrip on them understand this too.

It's really tragic when we see how the media have manipulated people
like the mother who writes for the San Jose Mercury News, but sometimes
it's almost funny watching some of the academic lemmings in the grip of
Political Correctness squirm when they're presented with a similar
dilemma. A recent case is that of Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery. He'd
always been a hero to the Politically Correct establishment after his
World War Two victory over the Germans in North Africa. After the war he
toured Britain's colonies in Africa and filed a report with the
government which was quite at odds with the aim of the liberals in the
government to dismantle the British Empire, and so his report was
stamped "secret" and filed away for 50 years.

The statutory 50 years being up a few weeks ago, it was released to the
news media by Britain's Public Records Office. Montgomery not only was
in favor of strengthening the Empire and opposing the spread of
communism in Africa -- both goals anathema to liberals -- but he
expressed his frank opinion of Blacks, including the supposedly
"civilized" ones, and their capabilities. The Black African, Montgomery
wrote, -- quote -- "is a complete savage and is quite incapable of
developing the country himself." -- end quote --

Now, Montgomery's opinion of Blacks was not at all uncommon in the
1940s, when he wrote his report, and people were not afraid to state
this opinion in polite society. In fact, it was the majority opinion
among Britons who had had any experience at all in the British colonies
in Africa. During the past 50 years, however, the controlled media, the
churches, and other boosters of Political Correctness succeeded in
making that opinion Politically Incorrect, and so when Montgomery's
comments on Blacks were made public recently, everyone still alive who
had had any contact with him tried desperately to put as much distance
as possible between himself and Montgomery. His surviving relatives
expressed their shame and embarrassment. One of Montgomery's biographers
interviewed by The Guardian this month sniffed that -- quote -- "his
reputation is irredeemably damaged." -- end quote -- Montgomery's
entire reputation, of course, is as a military leader and strategist,
but to the Politically Correct zealot it is quite inconceivable that one
can be a "racist" and also a person with superior qualities of any kind.

And this sort of thing has happened over and over again. When H.L.
Mencken's private papers were published a few years ago, there was the
same sort of ducking and running for cover on the part of everyone who
ever had said anything nice about Mencken or his work. They were scared
to death that Mencken's frank views on race and on the Jews would cause
people to think that they were themselves Politically Incorrect. They
were terrified of guilt by association.

Almost every public figure or writer of note before about 1950, except
communists or clerics, who had anything to say about race would scare
the pants off today's Politically Correct lemmings. Read what the
humanitarian doctor Albert Schweitzer had to say about the Blacks in
Africa that he lived among and spent his life trying to help. Read what
President Teddy Roosevelt wrote on race. Or Abe Lincoln. Or any of a
hundred others I could name without even having to do any real digging
in my library. This has made history a political minefield for
Politically Correct writers and teachers -- and it is the principal
reason why history is being phased out of high school and university
curricula, except for bowdlerized -- really falsified -- versions which
have been carefully cleared of mines. I mean, how is a Politically
Correct teacher to explain to students that nearly everyone they had
thought of as a great inventor -- Thomas Edison, for example -- or a
great industrialist -- Henry Ford, for example -- or a great pioneer of
aviation -- Charles Lindbergh, for example -- or a great military leader
-- George Patton, for example -- or you name it was really a terrible
racist? How is this to be concealed from the students when they read
the details of these historical figures' private lives, when they read
what these people actually thought on racial matters? Hey, a history
professor could get himself into real trouble in a hurry. Better just
not to study anything that happened before about 1960. Who needs to know
all of that old stuff, anyway? Most of it is terribly Incorrect,
Politically speaking.

The most popular radio show ever broadcast in America, which started in
1929, eventually became a TV series, and ran until 1960 -- 31 years
altogether -- was Amos 'n' Andy. It was a show with White scriptwriters
and White actors playing the roles of Blacks and using Black dialect. It
was not in any sense an anti-Black show; in fact, it treated its Black
characters with affection; but it was a comedy show, and it did not
portray Blacks as dignified statesmen or brain surgeons or rocket
scientists, so by the 1960s it had been condemned as "racist" and taken
off the air. If the Amos 'n' Andy show were revived today, any company
which signed on as a sponsor would be hit immediately with boycotts and
demonstrations. Politicians and church leaders would be giving outraged
speeches on television about how "hateful" and "racist" it was. And all
over America tens of thousands of Katherine Corcorans -- remember, she's
the silly woman who wrote in the San Jose Mercury News last week about
her seven-year-old daughter's traumatic experience with Barbie dolls --
tens of thousands of Katherine Corcorans and their fully "sensitized"
husbands would be wringing their hands and agonizing over how to explain
to their kids why they couldn't watch Amos 'n' Andy on TV, why it would
be "prejudiced" of them to laugh at the characters.

It's interesting to note that although Amos 'n' Andy spent its last days
as a TV show, it was primarily TV which brought about the great sea
change in America in the 1960s which made it impossible for Amos 'n'
Andy or any other Politically Incorrect programming to remain on the
air. Television as a brainwashing medium first became significant around
1950 -- or perhaps a year or two earlier. In 1950 there already were ten
million black-and-white television receivers in the United States. Even
in the early 1950s every self-respecting lemming family which wanted to
keep up with the Joneses believed that it had to have a television
receiver in the house, so that every evening the little lemmings and
their parents could gather around the tiny, flickering, monochrome
screen to have their attitudes and opinions adjusted. But it was the
advent of color television at the beginning of the 1960s which made
television the powerful and universal medium of mind control that it
quickly became.

Without television Katherine Corcoran's little girl could have reached
for the White Barbie doll without a trace of angst. Without television
Field Marshall Montgomery's admirers wouldn't have to be apologizing for
him. Without television Bill Clinton would be simply another crooked
lawyer in Little Rock, defending small-time drug dealers.

Of course, it's really misleading to blame television as a medium for
Political Correctness. That's like blaming Smith and Wesson or Colt for
drive-by shootings. The ones to be blamed are the members of that
Hollywood tribe who got their dirty hands on television right from the
beginning, elbowed everyone else aside, and with an unfailing tribal
instinct began using the new medium to inject their spiritual poison
into our people. But, you know, that's a subject we've talked about
often enough already on American Dissident Voices.

We ought to conclude our talk today by resolving that we will not
continue sitting on our hands while that filthy tribe poisons the souls
of seven-year-old girls: that we will do whatever we must do to end
their control of the minds and souls of our people.
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribes of ADVlist.

To subscribe to ADVlist, send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" as the subject of the message to:

For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at or

==> The National Alliance has a strict anti-spamming policy. This
information is intended for interested parties only and is not to be
indiscriminately distributed via mass e-mailing or newsgroup posting.

To contact us, write to:
National Vanguard Books
Attention: ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946

or e-mail: please tell us if we can post your
comments and if so whether you want your name or e-mail address

--> TO BE REMOVED from ADVlist, send an e-mail message to: which has "unsubscribe" as the subject of the

(c) 1999 National Vanguard Books

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Received: from ( []) by (v57.6) with SMTP; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:14:56 -0500
Received: from ( [])
by (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id QAA17073;
Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:14:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( [])
by (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA01673;
Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:13:30 -0500
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:48:57 -0500
Message-Id: <>
Subject: ADV1-30-98:Choosing a Barbie Doll
From: "American Dissident Voices"
To: National Alliance
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: Bulk