Saturday, May 31, 2014

The Nature of the Beast

From Attack! tabloid, Issue No. 2, 1970:
The Nature of the Beast
By Dr. William Pierce

What is the Establishment? Why, that's easy, you say: the Establishment is those persons, taken collectively, who run the System. But who are "those persons"? What are their names? What, if anything, do they have in common? How did they get into the Establishment in the first place? Is one born into it? Is it something like a fraternity or a secret society? Is great wealth a prerequisite for admission? Or is membership in the Establishment a prerequisite for owning great wealth in America?

There is a great deal of confusion on these questions because of the sloppy but prevalent tendency to equate prestige and status -- i.e., social rank -- with power in our society. Things don't necessarily work that way. It is clear that the one meaningful criterion for distinguishing members of the Establishment from non-members is power -- power to make independent decisions which directly affect the operation of the System. In applying this criterion, however, it is essential to distinguish between apparent power, or power of a purely formal sort, and real power.

Military-Industrial Complex

As an example, consider the oft-mentioned "military-industrial complex." The standard rhetoric on the subject would lead one to the conclusion that the brass hats -- the generals and the admirals who make up the military side of the complex -- are powerful men and, hence, part of the Establishment. But, as a matter of fact, this conclusion is false. Most generals and admirals exercise virtually no influence on the System. The average general may have a lot of tanks and guns to play with. An admiral may command a mighty aircraft carrier or a whole fleet of secretaries and typists in the Pentagon. But one thing these men may not do is make independent decisions.

All their gold braid does not change the fact that they are mere pawns in the game -- and rather rigidly restricted pawns, at that. Being allowed to decide whether next Tuesday's mission will be to blow up village "A" instead of village "B" in Viet-Nam does not constitute real power, in the System sense. Neither does having the authority to write a purchase order for one million mess kits, aluminum, collapsible. This is not to say that there is no truth in the Colonel Blimp caricatures of the military bureaucrat or that much of what's wrong in public life today is not exemplified in the Pentagon hierarchy. But the example of Douglas MacArthur should serve to illustrate what can happen when a general begins to get ideas too big for his brass hat.

Similar considerations apply to much of the industrial side of the military-industrial complex -- although the industrialists, because they have money, must be scrutinized more carefully than the generals. There is no denying the fact that any man with $500 million in the bank -- provided he is also moderately clever -- has a definite potential for calling the tune. Nevertheless, it is surprising how little correlation there is between personal wealth and real power -- in most cases.

In the first place, the manufacturer who owns a $100 million dollar tire factory by no means necessarily has $100 million in financial weight to throw around. His liquid assets, available for buying politicians, silencing critics, influencing elections, etc., will generally be much smaller than his fixed assets, such as land, buildings, and machinery. He may find himself hard pressed just keeping his employees' union bought off, the IRS off his back, and his yacht afloat.

The average Industrialist makes his contribution to the System not so much by pulling the strings as merely by playing along with it through his own money-grubbing self-interest. His control over our lives is largely mechanical -- the filth his factories pour into the air we breath and the water we drink, the honking, flashing, screeching asphalt and neon jungle he has built for us to live in.

The control exercised over our lives by the System -- and, thus, by the men of the Establishment -- is much more profound. It reaches into our minds and our souls and twists our wills to its own ends; it manipulates us and subtly persuades us; it corrupts us and robs us of our strength and our virtue; and, when its purpose is so served, it coldly snuffs out our lives by the millions.

The War-Makers

The military-industrial complex may glory in wars and it may profit from them, but it is the Establishment -- not the generals and the factory owners -- which makes the basic decisions as to whether there shall be a war and when and against whom. American involvement in both World Wars gives us an excellent example of how the Establishment works.

Neither in World War I nor in World War II were the interests of the American people served by intervention in European conflicts. Yet, in 1917 Wilson dragged a reluctant America into a European war, and 24 years later Roosevelt managed the same thing. In both cases the principal actors had been re-elected to the Presidency immediately beforehand on a platform of pacifism and nonintervention. And in both cases the mass media -- principally the press, in that pre-TV era -- had played the vital role of swinging public opinion into line behind the newly elected instant warriors.

But neither Wilson nor Roosevelt were the ultimate decision-makers. Nor was it the generals or the industrialists. In both cases the decision-makers -- the men of the Establishment -- worked behind the scenes to further their own vital interests at the expense of the American people. And they exercised the necessary control over the System to prevail.

In World War I those whose interests were served were the Zionists, who received England's pledge, as later expressed in the Balfour Declaration, to deliver Palestine to them. In return they brought about U.S. intervention in the war on the side of England. Their agents in this were Louis Brandeis, the Zionist Supreme Court justice, who exerted his influence directly on Wilson, and a number of Jewish newspaper publishers who controlled a substantial portion of the American press. 

 This Andy Warhol advertisement for a Jewish nose job, titled "Before and After"
was auctioned off in New York last month. An "art" collector paid $21,000 for it
[More about this painting here:]

In World War II world Jewry was faced with its most serious crisis in centuries as National Socialist Germany moved to destroy Jewish power and influence in Europe. Again, the media played an enormously important role in conditioning the American people to accept the necessity of a European war. In the war hysteria generated after the fortuitous -- but not unforeseen -- Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt and the press were able to sweep the public along on a monumentally destructive and murderous "Crusade in Europe." We can again see the same process at work where the Middle Eastern war is concerned today.

The Omnipotent Media
It is not the generals and it is not the industrialists who are responsible for the U.S. backing Israel. Between them they couldn't begin to talk the American people into another war now. But the media could -- and are. The generals and the munitions makers have clearly recognizable spheres of self-interest. Thus, even the most credulous elements of the public immediately discount anything they say.

Unfortunately, the same is not true of the media. First, most people do not recognize that the media also, because of the tightly knit nature of the group which controls them, have a definite sphere of self-interest. Second, the media are truly (and inherently) Oriental in their subtlety. The average American thinks "propaganda" is what a plainly labeled spokesman for the System tells the people in order to keep them happy, win their support for a new government program, etc. He simply doesn't think anyone would be devious enough to try to accomplish the same thing with the Wednesday Night Movie, or the Six O'Clock News, or an Associated Press release, or the Sunday supplement in his morning paper.

The pride of the media is their ability to create the illusion of a marketplace of diverse ideas and opinions, while in reality always representing only their own interests. Consider, for example, the spectrum of views presented by the media on the Middle East conflict. Some editorial writers are hot for all-out U.S. military support of Israel, while others feel a little less commitment would be more appropriate. Most commentators refer to the fedayeen as "terrorists", while some use the more neutral term "guerrillas." And while some columnists rage about "Arab aggression," others gently remind us of the miserable conditions in the Palestinian refugee camps. But can you name a single major newspaper in America which advocates that we back the Arabs rather than the Jews? And when was the last time you heard David Brinkley refer to Israeli commandos as "terrorists"?

No Choice
Indeed, we never get both sides of an issue from the media, but only various views of the same side. We are given the same sort of "choice" in forming our opinions that the Democrats and Republicans present to us every four years. In today's world many things are important and represent power: money, the military... but the most important and powerful of all in a modern democracy is the mechanism for creating and controlling public opinion. The group which has this mechanism in its hands wields the ultimate authority.

That group is the Establishment -- or, at least, the vital core of the Establishment. And, in 20th-century America, that group is predominantly Jewish. This may be hard to accept for those who have convinced themselves that the Establishment is Standard Oil and the Pentagon. In the world of 100 years ago that would have been the case. But today Mr. Rockefeller, despite all his millions and all his talent for deceit and all his conniving, grasping, unprincipled ambition, wields less power than say, Sam Newhouse, of whom most Americans have never heard.

Mr. Newhouse, the publicity-shunning son of Jewish immigrants from Russia, doesn't own Standard Oil. But he does own 28 big-city daily newspapers, with a combined circulation of more than five million. The slanted news in one day's printing of the Washington Post or the New York Times carries more weight than all the memoranda ever issued by all the generals in the Pentagon. Needless to say, both these papers are in the hands of Jewish families. If one considers not only direct ownership but also indirect control through advertising revenue -- which is the lifeblood of any newspaper -- virtually every major daily newspaper in America is subject to the dictates of the Jewish Establishment.

We are living in the age of the mass media. It is an age in which new rules apply. No longer is it necessary, in order to control a nation, for a ruling clique to have a monopoly on the capital assets and the firepower of that nation. These days control is exercised more subtly, but all the more surely, by manipulating the thoughts and the opinions of the populace. Universal literacy, which makes every American a newspaper reader, and unprecedented prosperity, which has put a TV receiver in every home, insure that the control will be all-pervasive. There is only one way to fight it, and that is to understand what it is and who exercises it - and then to go after them tooth and nail.




Saturday, May 24, 2014

Liberals, the Jews, and Israel

by Dr. William L. Pierce
THE CURRENT JEWISH power play in the Middle East poses the gravest imaginable dangers to America. Yet, in the midst of these dangers is a development which offers the promise of great good to the American people. That good is the disruption of the American liberal establishment and the extensive undermining of the traditional alliance between Jews and Gentile liberals.
Neo-Liberal Stalwarts
The Palestine crisis has caused a major falling out among the architects of American decline and degeneration. We are presented with the interesting spectacle of such neo-liberal stalwarts as Reverend Daniel Berrigan, Senator J.W. Fulbright, and syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, among others, turning against both their fellow liberals and their Jewish patrons in the news media and siding with the Palestinians in the Jew-Arab conflict in the Middle East.
One of the many ironies of this is that the very liberals who are now in such a state of ideological disarray and moral torment over the issue of Jewish imperialism and aggression in the Middle East laid the groundwork themselves for that imperialism and aggression more than a quarter-century ago by supporting the initial Zionist seizures of Arab territory.
Jewish Soap
Daniel Berrigan
Daniel Berrigan
At that time — in the years immediately following World War II — Jews could do no wrong in liberal eyes. They were then, even more successfully than now, exploiting their role as “victims” of National Socialist persecution. They parlayed pitiful tales of gas chambers and soap factories into a carte blanche for their postwar political designs, relying heavily on support from beguiled liberal Gentiles.
It is interesting to note that liberals, who have always insisted that a person must be judged only as an individual and not as a member of a racial or ethnic group, accepted without hesitation the thesis that the Jews, as a people, were entitled to immunity from criticism and to collective reparations for the disabilities which some individuals among them, no longer present for the most part, had suffered earlier in Germany.
Butchers in U.S. Uniforms
J.W. Fulbright
J.W. Fulbright
Furthermore, the same liberals who so passionately commiserated with the Jews after the war were startlingly oblivious to atrocities committed against peoples far less blameworthy than the Jews in Germany: the postwar massacre of the Cossacks by the Soviet secret police, for example, or the slaughter of half a million anticommunist Croats by Tito’s communist guerrillas in 1945. Liberal writers who condemned in the harshest terms the German practice of shooting Jewish political commissars whenever they were discovered among captured Soviet troops, refer in an indifferent and offhand way to the brutal torture and murder of tens of thousands of German SS men, the elite of their nation, who, after they had laid down their arms and surrendered, were turned over to Jews in U.S. Army uniforms to be castrated, used for bayonet practice, and subjected to other tortures too gruesome to recount.
Left-Wing Tradition
One cannot blame this historic inability of liberals to recognize persecution, except when a Jew happens to be the persecutee, on the liberal bias toward left-wing causes and governments with which Jews have traditionally been associated. The Soviet government, for example, was immune from criticism so long as it occupied itself with the butchering of Ukrainians, Cossacks, Latvians, Poles, etc. But when the Kremlin decided the time had come to put a foot down on Zionist agitators on its own doorstep, liberal publicists suddenly turned against the Soviet Union with a vengeance.
Professional Victims
Rowland Evans
Rowland Evans
No, there is a very special relationship between Gentile liberals and Jews, and it began long before World War II.
Jews, of course, have been playing the “persecution” angle for all it is worth throughout their long and turbulent history. In a sense they have made a living — generally, a very good living — off being “scapegoats.”
Before the Germans it was the Russian Czars who persecuted this race of professional “victims,” and before them it was the Polish peasants, and the Spanish Inquisitors, and the English yeomen, and the French Crusaders, and the Roman legions, all the way back to the Egyptian Pharaohs. Westerners, and not just the liberals among them, have always been suckers for a cleverly managed act of martyrdom.
But there is more to it — much more. From the time when the Jews were emancipated from their European ghettos and began infiltrating the institutions and the cultural and political life of the Western peoples among whom they lived, there developed a symbiotic relationship between Jews and Gentile liberals.
Jews are, in a sense, the carriers of the neo-liberal virus — that is, of the disease in its modern form, which differs substantially from what was called ”’liberalism” prior to the 19th century.
Robert Novak
Robert Novak
Having lived throughout 4,000 years of recorded history as an alien minority among other peoples, Jews have developed a unique modus vivendi which depends critically upon preventing their hosts from forming a united front against them and restricting their activities. They must, much in the way certain bloodsucking insects inject a venom into their host in order to break down its body tissues and permit the easier withdrawal of nourishment, break down all barriers of race and culture which protect a host people from them.
Potent Venom
Otherwise the natural protective reactions to their presence in the body of the host will result in their being either expelled or encysted, as has happened repeatedly throughout history.
Neo-liberalism is the most potent tissue-dissolving venom which the Jews have developed for breaking down the institutions and the internal structure of the Western nations. Gentiles infected by the disease have opened the door of one Western institution after another to the Jews during the past 200 years and have then provided “cover” for their activities.
Automatic Suckers
The Jews are an extraordinarily clever, ambitious, and aggressive people, and they have used their cleverness to evoke an almost worshipful attitude toward them on the part of Gentile liberals, who have been hypnotized by the Jews’ apparent “brilliance,” “creativity,” and “sensitivity.” In this hyper-receptive state, the liberals have been automatic suckers for every new fad the Jews have trotted out, from the most perverse and destructive trends in modern painting and sculpture to the pornographic “literary” blather of Philip Roth and Norman Mailer.
From the Jews they have learned to venerate the ugly, the weak, the deformed, the impure, the unnatural, the chaotic. The Jews have inverted their sense of values and taught them to coddle and promote Blacks, mongrels, criminals, moral cripples and perverts of every sort, and, above all, those rejected and “persecuted” by society.
Ill-Gotten Lucre
None have ever more successfully used the gimmick of portraying themselves as a persecuted minority, the unfortunate and blameless victims of religious and racial discrimination, than the Jews.
This was easy for them at a time when, as pushcart peddlers and pawnbrokers, they could speak only broken English and were ostracized from polite society. But only the special relationship which has grown up between liberals and Jews can account for their being able to maintain this pretense after they had gotten rid of their Yiddish accents (Henry Kissinger excepted) and were rolling in ill-gotten lucre from Hollywood to Broadway.
Liberals still thought of them as downtrodden people, especially deserving of sympathy and protection, after they had monopolized half the schools of law, medicine, and journalism in America, had elbowed the last of their Gentile competitors out of the clothing industry and a dozen other major industries, and had established themselves as the single most powerful bloc on Wall Street, with Jewish financial houses (Kuhn, Loeb & Co.; Goldman, Sachs; J.W Seligman & Co.; Lehman Bros.; Dillon, Read; Speyer & Co.; Ladenburg-Thalman; Salomon Bros.) overshadowing the older Gentile firms.
In recent years, lest all this opulence and power confuse their liberal admirers, the Jews have used their control of the mass media to crank out a steady stream of motion pictures, books, and Sunday-supplement articles rehashing over and over again their mistreatment at the hands of the Germans a generation ago, thus maintaining their status as a persecuted minority.
Easy Choice
But, irony of ironies, it was this very bias in favor of the underdog which finally caused the liberals to miss an ideological turn the Jews had mapped out for them and to go off on the “wrong” road in the Middle East.
After all, here were a bunch of arrogant, militaristic, racist, imperialistic Jews on one side (the Israelis), rolling in billions of dollars of “reparations” extorted from Germany and grants from the United States, and armed to the teeth with an enormous arsenal of fancy, new, technological weapons, waging aggressive war against huddled, penniless, tattered Arab refugees living in tents and armed only with rifles and hand grenades (the Palestinians). It was pretty obvious which side a person conditioned always to favor the underdog should choose.
Over-conditioned Liberals
The situation is reminiscent of that accompanying the Italian invasion of Ethiopia nearly 40 years ago, when the liberal sympathy for the Ethiopians, brown and backward, was Pavlovian. Since then they have been conditioned repeatedly by the news media, most notably in the Korean and Vietnamese wars, to side with the guerrillas, the irregulars, the “freedom fighters,” against the establishment troops. In the Middle East all this conditioning has backfired on the Jews.
They have tried to use their control over the mass media to paint a propaganda picture of Israel as an underdog nation and to identify the wretched, dispossessed Palestinians with their oil-rich Arab neighbors. But this portrayal has been too grotesque for credibility. The Israeli concentration camps, the racism practiced against the Arab minority in the Jewish-occupied areas, the Israeli policies of imprisonment without trial, of collective reprisals against Arab civilians, of arrogantly trampling on the sovereignty of Lebanon, of torture of prisoners — all these have triggered conditioned reflexes in American liberals.
Ideological Consistency
And the result is, wonder of wonders, that the liberals—or, at least, a significant fraction of them—are accidentally ending up on the right side of an issue for once. They are, in growing numbers, taking the side of Arafat and his Palestinian freedom fighters instead of the side of their Jewish oppressors.
The pro-Palestinian position is by no means unanimous among liberals, of course. It is taken only by the honest ones, by the ideologically consistent ones.
The Jews still have a plentiful stable of obedient liberal hacks on their payroll — 95 per cent of the Congress, for example, and thousands of newspaper prostitutes, pulpit prostitutes, academic prostitutes, and showbiz prostitutes — all dancing to the Zionist tune in order to earn their supper. For every Senator Fulbright there are half-a-dozen Hubert Humphreys and “Scoop” Jacksons, and for every Evans and Novak there are three or four Joseph Alsops.
No Collaboration
Furthermore, it would be a severe miscalculation to plan on any sort of coalition or collaboration between honest liberals and patriots in order to break the Jewish stranglehold on America.
Liberals — with a very few individual exceptions — have had no real change of heart. They are quite insistent that their anti-Zionist position in no way implies any basic change in their attitude toward Jews. They simply regard Zionists as Jews who have gone bad and Zionism as a racist aberration, rather than as the essence of Jewishness itself.
Table-leg Therapy
Senator Fulbright and the Reverend Berrigan are still on the wrong side of every issue except Palestine, and they are on the right side of that issue for the wrong reasons.
In other words, liberals — including the consistent ones — are just as sick as ever and just as dangerous to the future of America as ever. The only way the great majority of them will get their thinking straight, eventually, is with a sturdy, oak table leg applied smartly and repeatedly alongside the head.
Nevertheless, the present dissension in liberal ranks is of inestimable value. It is the most fervent and influential of the liberals who are now taking an anti-Zionist position, and their numbers and influence are growing daily.
Palestinian Victory Inevitable
The Palestinian people, through their perseverance, their sacrifices, their reckless courage, and their determination to use any and all means to keep the world from forgetting about them, have finally succeeded in obtaining, in the United Nations, a forum for presenting their case to the world. More and more liberals will be forced to listen to them, and more and more liberals cannot help but agree with them.
And Israel’s intransigence and arrogance, exacerbated by recent Palestinian propaganda successes, will become more painfully obvious to her former admirers. Who could have failed to be repelled by that shrieking, cursing mob of swarthy, wiry-haired Israelites outside the United Nations building in New York in November, spitting and screaming for Yasser Arafat’s blood as he eloquently pleaded his case for justice for his people inside?
Cracks Will Widen
All this can only lead to a widening of the cracks which have already appeared in the System: the liberal-Jewish power structure which rules America. These cracks offer patriots an opportunity they have not had in the last 35 years to build opposition to the System and to win support for an alternative.
The Jews, of course, are fully aware of this. They can feel the tide of liberal opinion finally turning against them or, at least, against their territorial ambitions in the Middle East — and they are far-sighted enough to see the long-range dangers this tide can bring them.
“The New Anti-Semitism
They have frantically tried to head it off by denouncing as “anti-Semitism” every manifestation of anti-Zionism. Their principal “enforcement” agency in America, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, has sponsored the publication of a widely touted book, The New Anti-Semitism, which singles out by name many prominent liberals who have taken a public stand even slightly critical of Israel and attempts to stigmatize them with an “anti-Semitic” label.
In days past, the threat of being called an anti-Semite was enough to send the bravest liberal scurrying for cover, but this tactic isn’t working any more. In fact, it’s backfiring on the Jews.
Nature of the Beast
The Palestine issue is too clear-cut, and the liberals who have finally made a moral decision on this issue are standing their ground. Being called “anti-Semites,” instead of frightening them, is calling to their attention, for the first time, the true nature of the beast with which they are dealing. It is merely hardening their position, burning the bridges between them and their former unquestioning philo-Semitism, and — in a very few cases — causing them to re-examine the whole basis of their ideology.
Rising Panic
These developments are causing a rising feeling of panic in the Jewish community. Always ready to cry before they are hurt, some Jews have even claimed, with a tinge of hysteria, “It’s happening again!” (a reference to their growing unpopularity in Germany in the 1930s).
More than anything else, the changing tide of liberal opinion may cause the Jews to overreach themselves by attempting a “final solution” of their Arab problem in the Middle East before they lose too much more ground in America.
If that happens, America will undoubtedly become involved in another war and will probably suffer grievous consequences. But, as General Brown suggested, it also might be exactly what is needed to change the present liberal ground swell against Zionism to a popular tidal wave against all Jewish influences in America.
* * *
From Attack! No. 32, 1975
transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

The Big Lie about the Berlin Olympics

Friday, May 2, 2014

Blacks, Jews, and Reverse Discrimination

Blacks, Jews, and Reverse Discrimination

pierce-oilby Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured, oil portrait by Will Williams)
WHITE AMERICANS — MEMBERS of that great, dispossessed majority — are increasingly suffering from the effects of a widespread program of “reverse discrimination,” in which they are refused employment or promotion or housing or small-business loans because they are not members of some officially sanctioned racial minority.
The White reaction to this anti-White favoritism has been weak and disorganized, at least in part because of a failure to understand the source of the problem. The White tendency is to regard the Black community as organized and monolithic and to place the blame for reverse discrimination entirely on Black-bloc political pressure.
Toms and Nationalists
In reality, things are a little different. It behooves us to understand that the Black community is neither monolithic nor ultimately responsible for the policy of reverse discrimination.
For political purposes, Blacks can be divided into three categories. By far the largest of these categories — at least 90 per cent of the Black population — is apolitical, consisting of Blacks who are largely unconscious of everything happening outside their immediate circle of friends and acquaintances. They just drift with the prevailing current. (The same thing is true, of course, of about half of the White population.)
The conscious Blacks tend to fall into two distinct groupings: the “toms,” or assimilationists, and the nationalists, or “Black is beautiful” crowd. Although some of the outward distinctions between the two have become blurred in the last decade because of the acceptance by toms of certain nationalist styles, this categorization remains valid.
Deodorants and Miscegenation
Most middle-class Negroes are toms, although many hotly deny it. Basically, they have very low self-esteem.
They want to be White, and they take great pains to dress like Whites, act like Whites, talk like Whites, and adopt White lifestyles. They tend to be avid consumers of hair straighteners, deodorants, and skin-lightening creams.
Most toms are not full-blooded Negroes, and status in their set is determined by their percentage of White genes. For them, the next best thing to being White is to “make it” in White society.
Racial intermarriage is quite acceptable to them.
The best-known tom political organization is the National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
Afros and Black Studies
The nationalists, on the other hand, have decided that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being born Black and having an African rather than a European heritage. Instead of trying to imitate Whites and their ways, they emphasize their own racial attributes.
The nationalists are responsible for the “Black consciousness” rhetoric of recent years (which has even become fashionable among some tom elements), for a number of distinctive Black styles (such as Afro hairdos), for “Black studies” courses in the schools, and for a number of violent clashes with White authority. They range from non-violent “Black culture” advocates to armed revolutionaries.
NAACP vs. Muslims
The best-known tom political organization is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Some of the more prominent tom personalities are Bayard Rustin (long-time organizer for communist-front groups, currently head of the A. Philip Randolph Institute), Ralph David Abernathy (head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference), and, of course, the late Martin Luther King. In addition, a few toms have been given status inside the System by being elected to Congress.
The best-known Black-nationalist group is probably the so-called “Nation of Islam”
(Black Muslims). Among the better-known personalities are boxer Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay), playwright and poet Imamu Baraka (Leroi Jones), and the late Malcolm X.
The subservience of top tom leaders is often guaranteed by the threat of publicizing scandals in their private lives. The late Martin Luther King had a weakness for extra-marital relationships which was well-known to the FBI and to his Jewish “advisors.” Bayard Rustin, the organizer of King’s giant march on Washington in 1958, is a sex pervert who was arrested and jailed in Pasadena, California, in 1953 for performing homosexual acts in a public place. The media masters have kept his police record quiet but hold the threat of exposure over his head. Likewise, Reverend Ralph Abernathy sexually seduced a 15-year-old member of his church congregation in Montgomery. There was a messy trial in Alabama in 1958, in which all the sordid details were revealed, but the media masters again have kept the news from the public.
“White Devils”
One thing toms and nationalists have in common is their hatred of Whites. Among the nationalists this hatred is open and outspoken. They see “White devils” as the oppressors of their people. Whites can never be forgiven for robbing them of their heritage by bringing their ancestors to America.
The toms’ hatred of Whites stems from their own self-hatred. Like its source it is kept repressed, but it is nevertheless there, seething just beneath the surface. The harder the tom struggles to become the “equal” of the White, the more elusive this impossible goal becomes and the bitterer grows his resentment.
Enter the Jew
America’s Black-White racial situation was pregnant enough with ominous possibilities — all the result of our failure to repatriate America’s freed slaves to their African homeland immediately after the Civil War — when a third party stuck his nose into things.
Actually, the Jewish role in American race relations began many years prior to the turbulent 1960s and 1970s. It is a little-known fact that the most important tom organization, the NAACP, was not founded by Blacks but by Jews. Since its inception in 1910 it has been led and financed by Jews. Its first leaders, Joel and Arthur Spingarn, who succeeded each other as head of the organization, were Jews. The current president, Kivie Kaplan, is also a Jew.
And it was Jack Greenberg, the Jewish lawyer heading the NAACP’s legal department, who directed the strategy which resulted in the Supreme Court’s infamous school integration decision of 1954. From that bit of mischief has grown all of today’s agony over forced racial busing.
Racial Hiring Quotas
In parallel with their program for the racial mixing of Blacks and Whites in the schools, Jews have also been the moving force behind the Federal government’s “equal opportunity” program.
Hiring quotas for Blacks were first established on Federally funded construction projects in 1969, and all contractors and labor and craft unions working on the projects were required to meet the quotas. Thousands of White workers lost jobs and union seniority as employers and union bosses complied with the racial quotas set by Washington.
Later the racial quotas were extended to other industries and businesses and to state and local governments. If the teaching staff in a local school system or the officers of a police department were judged to be too White by the equal-opportunity bureaucrats in Washington, orders were issued to cease hiring Whites until a certain number of Blacks had been hired.
THIS ADVERTISEMENT occupied a quarter of a page in the Washington Post in September. Since only about one per cent of the engineering graduates of America’s colleges are Black, Rockwell International’s policy of reserving one-third of its job openings for “minority groups” is a grave case of reverse discrimination against White graduates. Unfortunately, Rockwell International is typical of those companies doing business with the Federal government.
So long as the racial quotas were applied only to those jobs and professions in which Jews were very scarce, the Jewish community and the mass media were 100 per cent in favor of quotas. Nothing seemed fairer than that a White man or woman should give up his or her job to a Negro, in order to compensate for past discrimination.
But when the hiring quotas were extended to the white-collar professions and Jews began being bumped, oy veh, such complaints you never heard! In New York City, where the teachers in the public schools are predominantly Jewish, when Black nationalists began demanding “community control” of schools in Black neighborhoods, Jewish teachers whose jobs were threatened screamed bloody murder and the press took up their cause.
The DeFunis Case
And when a Jewish student, Marco DeFunis, was refused admission to the University of
Washington law school because the school hadn’t yet filled its quota for Blacks, Jews began bickering among themselves as to whether or not the program of reverse discrimination should be continued.
Jews are so heavily overrepresented in medical and law schools, in government, in journalism, and in certain other professions, that the government policy of Black quotas threatened to hurt Jews just as it had hurt Whites in the construction industry.
Jews Aren’t White
Jews finally resolved this problem by deciding that they aren’t really a part of the White majority but are members of a disadvantaged minority. Therefore, the program of reverse discrimination should be continued, but Jews should be exempted from it. Henceforth, Jews will support the program so long as only non-Jewish Whites are bumped to make way for Blacks.
If the Black community hadn’t realized it before, the controversy among Jews over racial quotas left no doubt in Black minds that Jews were serving their own ends, and not Black interests, in pushing for the integration of Blacks and Whites.
Beneath the Mask
The tom organizations have always deeply resented their dependence on the Jews. Jewish money, Jewish “advisers,” and Jewish publicity have been their lifeblood.
Black toms have not been deceived by the mask of “brotherhood” the Jews have shown them. They have keenly felt the contempt that lies beneath the mask.
The nationalist hatred of Jews goes beyond the resentment of being “used.” They understand that the Jews, in using racial integration to undermine White Gentile solidarity, will inevitably destroy the Blacks ‘ own identity too.
THE HERALD-DISPATCH is a Negro daily newspaper published in Los Angeles. Although the paper tends to be very mild in tone and to have a much more “respectable” image than Black nationalist publications, it has an editorial policy on the Jewish question which sets it apart from tom newspapers. The September 12 edition of the Herald-Dispatch reprinted the National Alliance leaflet, “Who Rules America?”, which is a condensation of the article, “The Masters of the Media,” appearing in this ATTACK!
CORE Switched
For the most part, the toms keep their feelings about the Jews to themselves, although the resentment often shows through. One Black group, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), which started as a militant tom organization, complete with Jewish advisers pulling the strings behind the scenes, managed to throw off Jewish control and switch its orientation to nationalist, but such instances are rare.
Jews have never backed Black nationalist organizations in any consistent or substantial manner, although they have tried to get handles on them. In the case of the Black Panthers the Jews succeeded, but most other nationalist groups have managed to maintain their independence.

(click image for larger version) THIS IS A PHOTOCOPY of a two-page article in the current issue of AL-ISLAM, published by a Black Muslim group in Washington and now being sold on the streets of the capital. It not only reflects the true feelings of most politically conscious Blacks towards the Jews, but it also reveals a better understanding of the true nature of the Jews than most Whites have. This embarrassing backwardness on the part of the Whites may be explainable in terms of their unique susceptibility to the disease of liberalism. When the Jew goes through his “humanitarian” act, then pulls out his handkerchief and weeps a few gentle tears about how the world “persecutes” him for his genius and sensitivity, the White liberal swallows it whole. The Black just grins. Hopefully, when a general cure for neo-liberalism can be disseminated, its mind-fogging effects will be abated and White Americans will be able to see the Jew as clearly as the Blacks see him.
An Easy Choice
Nationalists and toms are engaged in an escalating struggle for the souls of their people. Despite the numerical and material advantages now enjoyed by the toms in this conflict, the nationalists have been making noticeable gains recently. In addition, the nationalists have Nature on their side, and that’s an ally hard to beat.
From the White viewpoint, the choice between the two factions is easy. A nationalist victory may result in an armed confrontation between Whites and Blacks, but that’s something we know how to handle. Far better the loss of a few million lives in a race war than the loss of everything through continued assimilation and miscegenation. After all, no lives can be saved in the long run — only genes, only the race.
Mutual Respect
Ultimately, whether a race war occurs or not, the only possible basis for pacific relations between Whites and Blacks must be one of mutual respect. Respect for another race does not necessarily imply either love or admiration for that race, but it does imply self-respect on the part of both races.
Black self-respect can be fully realized only after the nationalist viewpoint has prevailed and Black society and the Black man’s destiny have been separated from those of the White man.
Until that time, however, Whites will continue suffering from reverse discrimination and Blacks will continue suffering the ignominy of being used as pawns in the Jewish bid for world domination.
* * *
From Attack! No. 31, 1974
transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom