American Dissident Voices Broadcast of October 28, 2000

Down the Slippery Slope
by Dr. William Pierce

Hello!

I've had many comments on my program of three weeks ago -- that was the
one in which I told you about the breakup of a child-pornography ring in
Moscow which kidnapped Russian children, raped and sexually tortured
them in front of cameras, and then sold videos of the activity to
wealthy perverts in the West. In some of the videos, children were raped
and tortured to death. Many listeners who contacted me were frustrated
because they were unable to locate the news sources on the Internet
which I cited during my broadcast. I myself was surprised at the almost
total blackout of this important story in the United States, especially
in view of the fact that many of the customers of this child-pornography
ring live in this country -- or perhaps that's why the blackout was so
nearly complete here.

But information is available to those who know how to look for it. In
addition to the media sources I cited earlier, there were a couple of
other reports which I have become aware of since my broadcast. There was
a September 29 Reuters report from Moscow, revealing that two of the
three men arrested there already had been released by the police. Can
you imagine turning people loose who were involved in that sort of
activity? It certainly sounds as if the people who kidnapped, raped, and
tortured Russian children have some powerful friends. That September 29
Reuters report, by the way, is in addition to the September 27 Reuters
report from Naples I quoted during the broadcast.

And in London the October 1 issue of the Guardian published a reasonably
detailed story. The Guardian newspaper has a web site --
guardianunlimited.co.uk -- where you can view the story. The Guardian
news report contains one interesting piece of information of which I
previously was unaware: most of the kidnapped Russian children, says the
Guardian, were little boys rather than little girls. I had just assumed
that they were all little girls. So if the Guardian is correct, then
most of the wealthy perverts in the West who kept this filthy business
going with their money are homosexuals. That may be another reason,
besides the Jewish domination of organized crime in Russia and the
Jewish domination of the media here, why this story was blacked out so
thoroughly.

One of these days I'll have to do a broadcast on the homosexual
brotherhood, the homosexual mafia -- and on the phenomenon of
homosexuality. If homosexuals were merely men confused about their
sexuality, such a broadcast wouldn't be worthwhile. But there is,
unfortunately, much more to it. Homosexuals are profoundly abnormal
people, and their abnormality, their sickness affects much more than
their preference in sexual partners. They have an abnormal way of
looking at the world, an abnormal way of thinking, in which sexual
sadism and other things which are abhorrent to normal people become
attractive. They really aren't just like normal people except for their
sexual orientation. People who believe that homosexuals ought to be
allowed to be scout leaders or school teachers need to be worked over
with an oak table leg and then sentenced to 20 years of hard labor in
order to straighten out their thinking. Well, we'll talk about that
another time. We have some other things to talk about today.

Sometimes when a person is suffering from a disease it may be helpful to
him if he can examine another person who has had the same disease for a
longer time and is showing the symptoms to a greater degree. In this way
he may at least have some forewarning of what to expect as his own
disease runs its course.

Britain -- the United Kingdom -- is probably between five and ten years
further down the slippery slope of Political Correctness than the United
States is. Three hundred years ago many of the independent-minded types
left Britain and came to the North American colonies, while the more
docile and obedient folks stayed in Britain. This is reflected today in
a greater degree of authoritarianism among the descendants of those who
stayed home than in the descendants of those who came to the colonies.
Which is to say, there is an even higher percentage of lemmings in
England today than in the United States.

In view of this, it is not surprising that the program initiated 60 or
so years ago to convert the entire planet into a global plantation under
the benevolent dominion of the Chosen few and their superrich allies in
the multinational corporations has made a little more progress on some
fronts in the United Kingdom than in the United States. On the political
front, I suppose we've sunk to about the same level. Over here we have
Bill Clinton, and over there they have Tony Blair, who is approximately
as great an embarrassment to real Englishmen as Bill Clinton is to real
Americans. Over here our government is packed full of Jews, but the same
is true over there.

On the demographic front we seem at first glance to be worse off than
they are. About 30 per cent of our population is non-White compared to
only 7 per cent of theirs. But that's deceptive. In 1950 our population
was only 10 per cent non-White, and virtually all of those were
descendants of Black slaves we failed to dispose of properly when
slavery was abolished here after the Civil War. So the percentage of
non-Whites in the United States has tripled since the Second World War.
But there were practically no non-Whites in Britain before the Second
World War. They all have come flooding in since the breakup of the
British Empire in the 1950s. Many urban areas in England today are as
heavily polluted by non-Whites as the worst urban areas in America, and
the growth of multiculturalism in England probably has been more of a
cultural and psychological shock for the English than the equivalent
phenomenon has been for Americans.

At the same time, however, many of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom
are taking to multiculturalism with a disgusting degree of lemminglike
enthusiasm. There is a limp-wristed variety of very fashionable educated
English ladies and gentlemen whose principal aim in life is to be on the
cutting edge of every degenerate and destructive trend and fad which
comes along. The latest fad is to redefine what it means to be "English"
or to be "British." The trendies are raising a hue and cry about the
"racism" inherent in those designations. Those terms aren't inclusive
enough, they believe. Some of the newer residents of the United Kingdom
may feel left out and have their feelings hurt.

I'll read you the first sentence -- and a couple of other sentences --
from an Associated Press report of October 11 from London. I quote:
"'Britishness' and 'Englishness' are racially coded terms with a
Whites-only connotation, an independent commission said Wednesday in a
report that called for a rethinking of the nation's self-image. . . .
'Britishness, as much as Englishness, has systematic, largely unspoken,
racial connotations,' the report said. 'Whiteness nowhere features as an
explicit condition of being British, but it is widely understood that
Englishness, and therefore by extension Britishness, is racially coded.
"There ain't no black in the Union Jack," it has been said.'" -- end of
quote -- 

This report was commissioned by an outfit called the "Runnymede Trust,"
described by the Associated Press as "an independent organization
devoted to promoting racial justice." Unfortunately, we have outfits
like that in the United States also, but they seem to be a little more
obnoxious and a little more of a problem in England. Typically they are
made up of the very fashionable liberal trendies I mentioned earlier, a
token member or two of the royal family, a handful of wogs and Blacks,
and a few churchmen. The Christian church in England has become at least
as malign a force as in America and has its hands in every racially
destructive business which comes along. And the royal family has been a
joke for several generations now. But to the authoritarian-minded
English, the church and the royal family lend credibility to outfits
like the Runnymede Trust, and the recent report undoubtedly has even
more Englishmen than before feeling guilty about the fact that Alfred
the Great wasn't a Rastafarian and Henry the Eighth wasn't a Pakistani.

The chairman of the committee which wrote the report is a wog, one of
the millions who came flooding into England with the dissolution of the
Empire after the Second World War and now wants to be considered an
"Englishman." He is Professor Bhiku Parekh, and he was bold enough to
say, and again I quote: "There is a very important role for a common
national culture and a common civic nationality. But we are requesting
that this common culture . . . be discussed and renegotiated." So
Professor Parekh believes that the meaning of Englishness needs to be
renegotiated. Sounds a bit Orwellian, doesn't it? But, believe me, the
English lemmings are willing to go along.

And so are those Chosen few who tell the lemmings which way to go. One
of these Chosen few who has been heard from in connection with the
report is "Lady" Kate Gavron., wife of the filthy-rich and very Jewish
publisher, "Lord" Gavron. She is the vice-chairman of the Commission on
the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, the committee of the Runnymede Trust
which produced the report. "Lord" Gavron became a lord, by the way, by
donating 500,000 pounds -- that's three-quarters of a million dollars --
to Tony Blair's last election campaign. That's the way one becomes a
"lord" or a "lady" in England these days.

When the report was released two weeks ago "Lady" Gavron remarked that
Prince Charles should have married a Negress as a symbol of his support
for multiculturalism. The Royal Family, she announced, should take the
lead in promoting racial integration. Last week she repeated herself
when she told the London Telegraph, and I quote: "It would have been
great if Prince Charles had been told to marry someone black. Imagine
what message that would have sent out." -- end quote -- Yes, imagine!
That's in the October 17th issue of the Telegraph.

"Lady" Gavron also told the Telegraph that the present Royal Family
sends out -- quote -- "the wrong message about Britain today." She
complained that  -- quote -- "they're all white. It is part of a very
unattractive hierarchy." She had a similar complaint about the
aristocracy in general, which she believes is "too Anglo-Saxon." She
said, -- quote -- "Anything hereditary is completely anachronistic and
illogical." Her views on Britain's history were similar: -- quote -- "We
need to acknowledge that there are different ways of looking at history.
The problem with the Empire was the inequality of power. It was
something we did to the Indians and Africans, not with them." -- end
quote -- 

Well, despite the eagerness of the lemmings to go along with the report,
there has been some dissent. A few tradition-minded Englishmen are
offended by the whole idea of redefining what it means to be English,
but they are being kept in their place by the more progressive-minded
politicians and bureaucrats, as well as by the twitterings of the
fashionable set, for whom "Lady" Gavron is an ideological arbiter. The
Guardian, a very liberal London newspaper, in an October 12 editorial,
sniffed at those Englishmen who failed to appreciate the report's
recommendation for more inclusiveness, and I quote: "They evidently do
not understand what it means to feel excluded: don't feel the individual
pain, don't reflect on the social consequences." -- end quote -- Well,
the author of that editorial, a Hugo Young, is one of those very
fashionable, limp-wristed Englishmen I mentioned.

Trevor Phillips, who is the chairman of the Greater London Assembly and
also is one of the authors of the report, dismissed the dissent as --
quote -- "knee-jerk reactions of little Englanders." By "little
Englanders" he means those who are fond of the idea of England by
itself, rather than as an integral part of the New World Order. Phillips
also said, and I quote: "St. George was a Palestinian, and Richard the
Lionheart didn't get around to learning English." To call St. George a
"Palestinian" is as misleading as the effort to label the Greek
Cleopatra a "Negress," because she was a queen of Egypt. Oh, and, by the
way, Trevor Phillips is an "Englishman" of the Caribbean/African
variety, another result of the breakup of the Empire.

So guess who entered the dispute as a peacemaker, reconciling the
traditionalists and the progressives? None other than Tony Blair's very
Jewish Home Secretary Jack Straw. Said Straw, and I quote: "I do not
accept the arguments of those on the nationalist right or the liberal
left that Britain as a cohesive whole is dead. Britishness has become
inclusive, with people happily defining themselves as black British or
Chinese British." -- end quote -- 

And now you really should not be surprised when I tell you that it was
Jack Straw himself who in early 1998 launched the committee of the
Runnymede Trust which produced the report. As in America, also in
Britain Jack Straw's tribesmen have their hands up to the elbows in
every piece of destructive filth which comes along. That we should
expect from what we know about his Chosen tribe. What is disappointing
and maddening is that we have so many trendy fools among our own tribe
who are ready to follow with mindless enthusiasm wherever the Jew leads
them.

Well, in Britain this sort of thing has been coming for a long time. For
more than a century now English monarchs have been appointing Jews to
the House of Lords. At the beginning of this sorry process in the 19th
century it was necessary that they first declare themselves Christians,
as in the case of Benjamin Disraeli, for example, but eventually all
that was necessary was that they make themselves useful to the monarch
in some way, and monarchs all too often found that a little extra cash
was very useful. So we have had the ridiculous spectacle of "Baron"
Rothschild and "Lord" Disraeli, "Earl" of Beaconsfield, and the
camel-faced "Lord" Gavron and all too many others without a trace of
Englishness in them declaring themselves to be English aristocrats.
These days the process of becoming an aristocrat has become even more
degraded because it is the prime minister rather than the monarch who
chooses the new lords and ladies, and prime ministers usually are even
more in need of ready cash than are monarchs.

Well, as I said, although many Englishmen are not happy about the
concept of Chinese Englishmen and Negro Englishmen, they have left
themselves open to the present situation. In the first place, they not
only fought enthusiastically on the wrong side of the Second World War
but were to a large degree responsible for there being a Second World
War, which for a while after the war they actually believed they had
won, just because they had participated in the destruction of their
hated economic rival Germany. That was the war, remember, which
sanctified the notions of "equality" and "democracy" and made the
dissolution of the British Empire a logical necessity.

And in the second place, the English, because of their somewhat greater
tendency toward conformity and ideological fashionableness than those of
us on the other side of the Great Water have been easier victims of the
Jewish racket to make "racism" a greater sin than child molesting. The
average Brit today is even more terrified of being thought a "racist"
than is the average American and also is more willing to go along with
whatever destructive foolishness the fashion-conscious lords and ladies,
led by the likes of Jack Straw and Kate Gavron, are pushing at the
moment.

Well, unfortunately, we over here are on the same slippery slope that
the Brits are on. We also fought on the wrong side of the Second World
War and then blindly began implementing the ideas inherent in the
slogans we mindlessly parroted during that war. A more serious and
troubling aspect of all this than the gullibility and lemming-like
nature of the masses of our people on both sides of the Atlantic is the
decline in morale on the part of our more aristocratic elements: our
stronger, prouder, and more independent-minded elements, who in less
democratic times used to provide our people with genuine leaders and
keep the lemmings from going too far astray.

The British aristocracy -- that is, the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy, the
Anglo-Celtic aristocracy, the Anglo-Norman aristocracy -- really has
gone downhill since the time of Henry the Eighth, and the decline hasn't
been entirely due to lax breeding habits. We've suffered the same sort
of decline in leadership morale over here since the time of Patrick
Henry and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It's not that our
leaders have been tricked into believing the egalitarian claptrap
promoted by Jews like Jack Straw and "Lady" Gavron. It's more that they
are willing to tolerate the sort of wickedness now that they wouldn't
have tolerated a couple of centuries ago. They're less willing to stand
up and speak out against evil. They've lost most of their civic courage.
How long has it been since there has been a much needed assassination of
a prime minister over there or a President or congressional leader or
media boss over here? We tolerate every sort of treason and destructive
wickedness imaginable rather than rebel against it.

Well, you know, I probably rage against this sort of thing too much. I
complain too much about the growing worthlessness of the lemmings and
the growing lack of responsibility on the part of those who should be
leading them in a healthy, positive direction, but aren't. I suppose my
comments are useful to some degree if they help people think about the
problems we face, but on both sides of the Atlantic we need to do more
than think about our problems and complain about them. Where leadership
is lacking we need to step forward and provide leadership.

Lemmings behave the way they do because they have been persuaded that
that's the way they're supposed to behave, that that's what is expected
of them. They are not consciously evil or consciously depraved. They
just don't have minds of their own. They always let other people decide
for them what is right and what they should think and what they should
do. And the wrong people have been deciding these things for them. We
need to begin taking the responsibility of deciding away from the media
bosses and the politicians. We can't do this all at once, and we
certainly can't do it for all of the lemmings now, but we can begin
affecting the way some of the lemmings think and behave. And we can do
this by standing up and speaking out and by setting the right example
with our own behavior.

When you make a public statement of any kind, never apologize for being
White, never apologize to non-Whites for anything, never disclaim
racism, never seem weak, never compromise on fundamentals, never waffle.
Be strong and sure and self-confident. Do right and fear no one. The
lemmings will begin following.

Thanks for being with me again today.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 subscribers of ADVlist.

To subscribe to ADVlist send an e-mail message to:
ADVlist-on@NatVan.com (The subject and body of the message don't
matter.)

For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or
http://www.natall.com

==> 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:  national@NatVan.com please tell us if we can post your
comments and if so whether you want your name or e-mail address
given.

==>  TO BE REMOVED from ADVlist, send an e-mail message to:  
ADVlist-off@NatVan.com (The subject and body of the message don't
matter.)

(c) 2000 National Vanguard Books