American Dissident Voices Broadcast of August 21, 1999

Killing Little Children
by Dr. William Pierce

The shooting at the Jewish community center in Los Angeles happened a
couple of days before I prepared my broadcast last week, and I thought
that I would just skip it, that I would not comment on it, either in
that broadcast or in the future. But I have had many calls from
reporters asking for comments on the shooting, and I have watched some
of the news coverage of the shooting, and I have changed my mind. I
believe that the thing which prompted me most strongly to make a comment
was listening to a televised statement by Janet Reno on the shooting.
What a woman! A fitting colleague for Madeleine Albright! The only thing
wrong with Janet Reno is that she's not a Jewess. That's a shame,
because she certainly would qualify on the grounds of mendacity and
overall crookedness.

Several things our Attorney General said brought me to the boiling
point, but probably the statement which made the strongest impression on
me was to the effect that we must learn how to resolve our disputes
without violence, that we all must respect each other as fellow human
beings and learn to live together in peace. She said that with a
straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle.
She said it as if she really meant it, this business about resolving our
disputes without violence and about learning to live together in peace.
I mean this was coming from a member of the inner circle of the Clinton
administration. This was coming from a high official of the government
which a few short weeks ago was dropping cluster bombs on Serb schools
and hospitals in order to force the Serb government to conduct Serbia's
internal affairs in accord with the demands of the New World Order gang.

And you don't have to remind me of the Clinton government's excuse that
the bombing of Serb schools and hospitals was a "mistake." That was the
same excuse the Los Angeles shooter, Buford Furrow, used. He said that
he didn't intend to shoot Jewish children; he merely wanted to shoot up
the community center, and the children just happened to get in the way.
Every time the Clinton gang killed a bunch of Serb civilians they said
they hadn't done it on purpose, but that the civilians just got in the
way and were hit accidentally.

Now, I am sure that often the pilots accidentally hit the wrong target
with their bombs and missiles, but the fact is that when the planes were
loaded with cluster bombs and then sent over Belgrade, somebody in the
Clinton administration was planning to kill Serb civilians. If you drop
cluster bombs on any populated area, the result will be maimed and
killed children. The cluster bombs were not a "mistake." They were
deliberately chosen as a part of the munitions used against the Serbs to
destroy their will to defend themselves against the Clinton
administration's aggression: violent, armed aggression, on a far bigger
scale than anything Buford Furrow could even dream of doing.

One other thing to remember now is that the war against Serbia was
essentially a Jewish war. Every major Jewish organization in America --
the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the American Jewish
Congress, you name it -- they all advocated the war; nearly every high
official of the Clinton government engaged in the conduct of the war --
Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, Sandy Berger, General Wesley Kanne
Clark -- is a Jew; and the Jewish mass media did their damnedest to
build public support for the war and hatred against the Serbs. But I do
not remember any apologies or expressions of regret from the Jews when
American cluster bombs killed Serb children. The attitude was, "Well,
that's too bad, we didn't deliberately target Serb children, but that's
what you get when you don't do what we tell you to do. If you don't like
it, just surrender to us now."

That was Janet Reno's attitude a few weeks ago. And if we want to
remember a little further back, Janet Reno was the Clinton
administration's chief thug in charge of the murderous attack on the
Branch Davidian church in Waco, Texas, in 1993 which resulted in burning
to death nearly 100 church members, including 17 children and led to the
Oklahoma City bombing two years later, in which another 15 or so
children were killed. Janet Reno thought her burning of the Branch
Davidian church was OK. Her murder of all those people, including 17
children, was OK, because, first, they were oddballs, social outcasts,
people who weren't in favor with the media, just a nutty little cult
which wanted to be left alone; and second, they refused to obey the
Clinton government's orders. So there were no apologies. There was no
admission of wrongdoing for her leading role in that violent and
murderous assault on the Branch Davidian church.

But when some nutcase Christian Identity kook shoots up a Jewish
community center without even killing anyone -- hey, that's suddenly an
opportunity for this cold-blooded "butch" of an excuse for a woman to
begin preaching about how we all must learn to live together without
violence. That sort of hypocrisy really irritates me.

Do you remember what Timothy McVeigh, the convicted Oklahoma City
bomber, said when the Clinton government sentenced him to die? He said,
in essence, that the government sets the example for the people. The
government teaches the people by its actions. When the government is
lawless and shows its contempt for life, then this will provoke lawless
behavior and contempt for life on the part of the citizens.

And you know, that's true. We have a violent, aggressive, murderous
government. The government taught everyone by its example in Waco and at
Ruby Ridge and in Serbia and in a hundred other places. And so we should
not be surprised when some citizens react in a violent and lawless way
to the government's example rather than taking Janet Reno's
hypocritically pious mouthings to heart.

Janet Reno, of course, wasn't the only hypocrite interviewed by the
media in connection with the Los Angeles shooting. They trotted out all
of their familiar "experts" -- most of them Jews -- to discuss the
question of why we're experiencing so much more violent behavior these
days. Why are so many heterosexual White males acting up, causing
trouble, and doing violent things? Why can't these awful heterosexual
White males be nice, like everyone else in the wonderful multicultural
salad the Clintonistas are blending?

And we heard every explanation except the correct one, and that is that
as alienation grows, so does violent, antisocial behavior. As more and
more heterosexual White males feel that they're being dispossessed,
being edged out, being marginalized so that homosexuals, feminists, and
other minorities can have a bigger slice of the pie, some of them react
violently.

How do you reduce the amount of antisocial behavior? You reduce the
degree of alienation. You try to rebuild the spirit of community, of
solidarity, of belonging that we used to have in American society 50
years ago: the spirit of community and solidarity and belonging which
has been destroyed by the policies of these same "experts." Every one of
these Jewish "experts" on violence is in favor of continued non-White
immigration, more "diversity," more racial mixing, more
multiculturalism, and all the other policies which have broken down the
ordered, homogeneous White society we used to have in America, a society
in which most White people felt they had a place, whether it was at the
top of the social ladder or at the bottom or somewhere in between. They
had roots in the society. They felt a part of it. But that is much less
the case today than it was 50 years ago, because of the government
policies which Janet Reno as attorney general is enforcing, and the
consequences are showing up.

One other thing about the Janet Reno statement which irked me was her
use of the Los Angeles shooting as one more reason why we need to scrap
the Second Amendment. Too many people have guns, she said. We have to
stop the proliferation of guns, et cetera. This is the woman who
presides over the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is the
government's strong arm of compulsion. Janet Reno sics the FBI on
landlords who show reluctance to rent apartments to homosexual couples.
She sends the FBI around to put the handcuffs on employers who have
failed to hire enough Haitians or mestizos. The FBI, which 50 years ago
used to spend its time chasing bank robbers, solving kidnapings, and
catching foreign espionage agents, is used these days to spy on people
who have been overheard expressing Politically Incorrect thoughts. It is
the agency which will be used to haul these people off to jail after the
Jews succeed in having a Federal "hate speech" law enacted.

And the FBI has been growing rapidly recently. Janet Reno lobbies the
Congress for bigger and bigger appropriations for the FBI, and each year
she has more hired guns on the government payroll for use against the
citizenry. It is not surprising that the citizenry is stocking up on
guns in response: at least, that part of the citizenry which has the
same feeling about firearms the Founding Fathers did, namely, that one
of their principal functions is to keep the government from getting out
of hand.

Of course, astute observers understand that the government has been out
of hand for a long time and that it'll take much more than a few
thousand citizens with assault rifles to get it back in hand again. But
the word hasn't yet trickled down to a lot of patriots, and so they keep
on stocking up on assault rifles and ammunition, and Janet Reno keeps
putting more armed thugs on the government payroll, while the Jews in
the Congress and the media work on getting guns away from the citizens
so that Janet's thugs will have a monopoly on firepower. Meanwhile, all
of this talk about making America a safer and more peaceful place by
disarming everyone is the sheerest hypocrisy. Janet's thugs certainly
have no intention of handing in their guns and halting their efforts to
intimidate White citizens.

Perhaps this is a good time for me to mention that people who are angry
at Janet Reno or Bill Clinton or the Jewish media bosses or at the
growing hordes of non-Whites in America ought to think of a more
constructive outlet for their anger than simply shooting at targets of
opportunity, a la Benjamin Smith or Buford Furrow. I will go so far as
to say that there are even more useful things for an angry patriot to do
than building a truck bomb and blowing up the nearest Federal office
building. At this particular moment in the breakdown of our society,
these occasional, random acts of violence are not especially helpful.
They are not part of a sound strategy. In fact, they are not part of any
strategy: they are simply individual acts of indiscipline, and they do
not serve the purposes of our people.

You know, I can understand the anger that results in these acts. When my
office was in Washington, DC, I was ready to explode and do something
violent every day. I wanted to blow up government buildings and kill the
politicians and bureaucrats who were destroying America; I wanted to use
a machine gun and sweep the streets clean of all the non-Whites; I
wanted to walk into the offices of the Washington Post with a
semiautomatic shotgun and lots of ammunition and begin cleaning house. I
was filled with rage at the things I saw going on around me. I wanted to
strike back at the liberals and the Jews and at their creatures.

And I know -- I am quite certain -- that the rage I felt every day when
I was in Washington is in many, many other heterosexual White males as
well. Rage is, I believe, a natural and healthy reaction, a normal
reaction in a healthy man to what is being done to America and to our
people. I can understand that women don't feel this rage and perhaps
homosexuals don't feel it and certainly all the people who're on the
other side, all the people who believe things are going their way, don't
feel it, but I'm much more concerned about any White man who isn't
enraged today than about those who are. I can only assume that any White
man who isn't angry today, either doesn't understand the situation, or
he needs to take hormone supplements.

Anyway, the conditions in every major city in America are conducive to
the rage I felt in Washington. And the rage is growing, and it will
continue to grow as a consequence of the policies of America's internal
enemies. Those who feel, as I do, that random acts of violence are not
especially helpful at this time, should not be thinking of ways to keep
men from being angry, but rather should think of ways to help men
control and direct their anger: to master their anger rather than being
mastered by it. We all should be angry, but we should not express our
anger in temper tantrums, which is essentially what these random acts of
violence are.

Can you imagine our enemies acting in such an immature and undisciplined
way? When the Jews want to hurt a country -- Iraq, for example -- they
don't express their hatred for Iraqis by setting off a truck bomb in
front of the Iraqi embassy. They very carefully make a long-range plan
to get one of their creatures elected President, and then they use the
powers controlled by the President to inflict really serious damage on
Iraq. If the Clinton administration became angry at China, say, the
government would not send a squad of U.S. Marines to shoot up a Chinese
restaurant in Washington. And Janet Reno wouldn't show her opposition to
letting Americans purchase firearms by ordering FBI agents to throw
bricks through the windows of gun stores or to spray-paint hateful
graffiti on the headquarters of the National Rifle Association.

The reason America's internal enemies are winning now is because they
not only use their heads to make plans, but they also exercise
self-discipline. They keep their feelings under control. When Madeleine
Albright began her murderous bombing of Serbia this spring, every Jewish
organization in America came out with strong statements of support for
the bombing. It obviously was something the Jews had been thinking about
for a while. But they did not act prematurely and foolishly by doing
something like shooting up the Serb community center in Chicago. They
understood that such an action would not cripple the Serbs or even
weaken them; it would only put them on the alert, make them angry, and
generate public sympathy for them.

I'll recap what I just said. Random acts of violence don't make sense
now. Temper tantrums are not helpful. What we need now is
self-discipline, not self-indulgence. It's good for us to remember now
the old, old rule for people who want to get rid of a king. The rule is:
kill the king with your first stroke; don't merely wound the king,
because if you do he surely will kill you.

Again, if you are angry at America's internal enemies, do not indulge
yourself with a foolish, premature, and ineffective act of violence.
Control yourself. Don't break laws. Don't even talk about breaking laws.
In America today many people are serving long prison terms for simply
talking about committing illegal acts without having actually done
anything. They are prosecuted under the government's conspiracy laws.

So if you don't like what Janet Reno and Bill Clinton and the Jewish
media bosses are doing to America, think in terms of a long-range,
effective plan, not some foolish act of self-gratification. And if you
want to talk about long-range, effective plans, contact my organization,
the National Alliance.

You know, some people who are angry at the government actually applaud
acts such as Buford Furrow's shooting up the Jewish community center in
Los Angeles. They believe that other people will do similar things,
independently, and the government won't know how to deal with it. I
mean, if many angry men, who don't even know one another, all do their
shootings and bombings independently and unpredictably, what can the
government do to stop them?

Listen, don't kid yourself! The government is perfectly capable of
countering illegal violence with illegal violence, and if there's one
thing the government is good at it's violence. People who advocate this
sort of independent violence against America's internal enemies seem to
believe that the government won't be able to counter it because the
government is bound by laws: we still have a Constitution, et cetera.
Believe me, the government will do whatever it thinks it can get away
with, legal or illegal. Look what the government did at Ruby Ridge and
at Waco. Look what it did to Serbia. We have a monster in Washington,
and the mere fact that the monster has respected some laws so far is no
guarantee that it will continue to do so in the future.

Both the Jews and the government, in fact, are using the recent Los
Angeles shooting now as ammunition to chip away at the Constitution.
Janet Reno is using it as an argument for a national gun registration
law. The Jews are using it as an argument not only for more restrictive
firearms laws but also for laws against what they call "hate speech."
Jews want to abolish both the First and the Second Amendment. Since the
shooting there have been polls of the couch potatoes, and the media
already have persuaded nearly half of the American public that so-called
"hate speech" is primarily responsible for so-called "hate crimes," such
as the Los Angeles shooting. How much longer do you think it will take
the Jews to persuade a majority of the couch potatoes that they will be
safer and we all will have a more peaceful and loving society if the
government is allowed to lock up anyone who says unkind things about
Jews? If you believe that can't happen in America, then you have a lot
more faith in the couch potatoes and their representatives in Washington
than I do.

A final word: I'm not trying to say that we must be careful not to
provoke the monster, that if we don't provoke it maybe it won't eat us.
The monster fully intends to eat us as soon as it can: as soon as it has
proceeded a bit further in its program of persuading the couch potatoes
that if they will just give up the First and Second Amendments -- and
perhaps one or two others -- they all will be safer and happier.
Ultimately the only way we can prevent that is by killing the monster.
The monster is at war against America, against our people, against our
freedom, against our traditions, against our children's future, and it
is a war to the death. So far the monster is winning that war. If we
want to change that, if we want to begin winning instead of losing, then
we must fight the monster with intelligence and self-discipline, not
with childish daydreams of victory through drive-by shootings.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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: ADVlist@NatVan.com

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@NatVan.com  which has "unsubscribe" as the subject of the
message.

(c) 1999 National Vanguard Books