A year later, in February 1983, the ADL Bulletin was able to claim substantial progress at the state level: "Mr. Perlmutter [then the ADL's national director] expressed the hope that other states would follow the lead of the 12 thus far -- Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Washington -- which have enacted laws imposing stiffer penalties for persons convicted of religious or racial vandalism or other acts motivated by bigotry [emphasis added]."
At that time the ADL, however, was still far short of its ultimate legislative goal: a Federal law prohibiting any expression of hostility toward, or any criticism of, Jews or other non-Whites by Whites. In the mid-1980s it shifted the emphasis of its campaign from the state to the national level. Its strategy was two-pronged: first, to condition legislators and publicists and then the general public to accept the concept of "hate crime" as a distinct, new category of crime; and second, to persuade the American people that a new body of legislation is needed to protect them from such crime -- needed so urgently, in fact, that they should be willing to sacrifice the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution in order to be safe from a dangerous new breed of "hate criminals."
To implement the first prong of that strategy the ADL formulated another of its "model statutes": a hate-crimes statistics reporting statute. Lobbying intensely, the ADL used its media outlets to publicize its own statistics, which not surprisingly showed a sharp rise in "hate crimes" throughout the latter half of the decade. A Federal law was needed, the ADL claimed, to track such crime. In January 1990 the organization reported that "hate crimes" had reached an all-time high during 1989. Leading the list were 1,432 "anti-Semitic incidents" reported by its agents around the country, ranging from swastikas daubed on driveways to arson. In April 1990 the Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the desired law. The new Hate Crimes Statistics Act requires the Justice Department to gather the statistics that the ADL formerly had gathered. All incidents in which hatred or prejudice based on race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation is alleged to be a motive will henceforth be subject to special Federal scrutiny and record keeping. If a homosexual in Norfolk, Virginia, makes a pass at a sailor and has his teeth knocked out for his trouble, the Justice Department in Washington wants to know all about it. If a Vietnamese "refugee" in Los Angeles finds a "gooks go home" message chalked on the windshield of his car, the FBI will investigate. It's the law now.
One might wonder why the ADL went to so much trouble to persuade the Federal government to duplicate one of the Jewish group's functions. The reason, of course, is not that more crime statistics are needed by anyone, least of all by the ADL; it is that now the Federal government has officially recognized the ADL's definition of a new category of crime. Now it will be the government, not just some Jewish group with a strange name, investigating and publicizing every hostile word or act based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. That is the first step toward persuading the Congress to enact, and the public to accept, new laws.
There will continue to be a screen of words -- "terrorism," "religious vandalism," and "hate, hate, hate" -- thrown up to disguise the true goals of those pushing for Federal "hate crime" legislation. As a result of this obfuscation the impression in many minds will be that the purpose of such legislation is merely to penalize those who paint swastikas on Jewish tombstones or set fire to synagogues. Who could object to a law against that? What the ADL really has in mind is revealed by an incident which occurred at the beginning of this year in West Milford, New Jersey. A young White man, 22-year-old Richard E. Lindstrom, stuck a three-inch by five-inch, orange-and-black sticker on a traffic sign and was arrested by a policeman who saw him do it. The message on the sticker was: "Earth's most endangered species: the White race. Help preserve it. Write or call National Alliance, ..." Ordinarily one would expect someone in Mr. Lindstrom's position to receive a citation for littering. In 1981, however, the ADL had succeeded in persuading the legislators of New Jersey to enact a so-called "Ethnic Terrorism Law," and he was charged under that law. He was facing as much as five years in prison and a fine of $7,500 for posting a sticker asking the public to help preserve the White race.
Anyone who understands the B'nai B'rith mentality can see the logic in that. To suggest that the White race (and, of course, one understands that "White" means European, or Aryan, excluding Semites) ought to be preserved is to challenge the Yahweh-given right of the Sons of the Covenant to rule the earth and its peoples as they see fit. That's clearly anti-Semitic. That stabs terror into the heart of every righteous Holocaust survivor. Therefore, Mr. Lindstrom committed an act of "ethnic terrorism" and ought to be put away for good.
Under the circumstances, however, to have tried him on an "ethnic terrorism" charge at this time would have been premature and might even have jeopardized the ADL's campaign for a comprehensive Federal "hate crime" law. There were vague mutterings from the American Civil Liberties Union, and it was even conceivable that some of the more loosely controlled elements in the news media might publicize the case and cause a White backlash around the country. Cooler heads in the local ADL office eventually prevailed, and the charge against Mr. Lindstrom was reduced to one of littering. Five years from now they might be able to make the "ethnic terrorism" charge stick, but not in 1990.
To ensure that they not only will have the Federal laws in place they are seeking by the end of this decade, but also will be able to make them stick, the ADL and other Jewish groups are coordinating their efforts. For the past few years they have been using the controlled entertainment media in an especially insidious way to condition the American people to accept passively the yoke planned for them. They have created a new film genre -- the "White terrorist" film -- to persuade the public that there is a growing danger from armed White "haters."
In 1987 we were hit with Into the Homeland, a film which attempts to convince East Coast city dwellers that the rural heartland of the Midwest is on the point of being taken over by heavily armed Christian Fundamentalists who not only don't like non-Whites, but who deal murderously with anyone of any hue who gets in their way. Only viewers with sharp eyes will catch the acknowledgement to the ADL among the credits at the end of the film. The film uses the scenario developed in a special report issued by the ADL in 1986, "The American Farmer and the Extremists."
In 1988 we were treated to a number of other films of the same ilk, the three most notable of them being Betrayed, Skinheads -- the Second Coming of Hate, and Talk Radio. The first of this trio, which was the most widely seen, portrays the White "haters" of the rural Midwest as not only heavily armed but also well organized and well financed, with top-level political connections in Washington. Their favorite Saturday-night pastime is to kidnap a Black from a nearby town, turn him loose in the woods, and then hunt him down and kill him.
Skinheads -- the Second Coming of Hate is the first in a series of Jewish films portraying working-class urban White youths who affect the skinhead dress and tonsure as viciously depraved, murderous thugs who hate not only Blacks and Jews but the whole world. The guidelines for these films are set in several ADL publications, most notably "`Shaved for Battle': Skinheads Target America's Youth" (1987) and "Young and Violent: The Growing Menace of America's Neo-Nazi Skinheads" (1988).
Talk Radio, loosely based on the 1984 assassination of Jewish radio host Alan Berg in Denver, allegedly by White revolutionaries, advances the thesis that people who haven't wholeheartedly embraced the brave, new pluralistic world of racial mixing, homosexuality, and feminism promoted by the ADL -- i.e., White racists -- are hair-trigger psychotics who may explode with murderous fury at the least provocation. It is the only one of the 1988 films which is even remotely credible to a sophisticated viewer. Most American television and cinema viewers are anything but sophisticated, unfortunately. The Jews already have succeeded in convincing many of them that certain completely legal acts or patterns of behavior are illegal. After seeing so many television episodes in which a hateful Ku Klux Klansman sneaks around like a criminal and is treated like a criminal by the other actors, the viewer can hardly be blamed for having the confused notion that there's something inherently illegal about being a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
In 1989, among many others, we had Dead Bang and So Proudly We Hail, two anti-skinhead films which distort the skinhead life-style into something far beyond the bounds of reality. Skinheads are depicted as the violence-prone storm troopers of a huge, sophisticated, highly organized neo-Nazi network. The latter of these films was a made-for-TV film written and directed by Lionel Chetwynd of the American Jewish Committee. In a booklet published by the Jewish group in conjunction with the broadcast of the film over CBS-affiliated stations, Skinheads: Who They Are & What to Do When They Come to Town, Chetwynd writes:
""So Proudly We Hail" is my way of speaking out. Through a fictionalized account based on real events, the film demonstrates how hate can be cultivated and grown into ideology. " One can only wonder what "real events" Chetwynd had in mind. The film shows a neo-Nazi organization developed to a level that real neo-Nazis can only dream about. And it drags out old, long-discredited Jewish canards about lampshades made from the skin of flayed Jewish concentration-camp victims and the like. The bulk of the American Jewish Committee's booklet shows as little regard for the truth as the film itself, consisting mainly of absurdly exaggerated claims of the menace to ordinary citizens from skinheads and exhortations to support various Jewish "model statutes" on "hate crimes" and outlawing semiautomatic weapons.
In 1990, the "White terrorist" genre is expanding to include segments of several popular cops-and-robbers television series, as well as full-length films. And the dual purpose remains: to both repulse and frighten the average American. Racially conscious White men and women must be perceived by the conforming television viewer as both hateful and dangerous.
Within the next few years the ADL hopes to have enforceable Federal "hate crime" legislation in place which, in the name of preventing "religious vandalism" or "ethnic intimidation," will make it illegal to print, possess, sell, or post a sticker of the sort Richard Lindstrom put on a traffic sign in West Milford, New Jersey, earlier this year. Not just stickers, but also books, pamphlets, leaflets -- or any public utterance -- offensive to a racial or religious minority or to homosexuals will be outlawed. Whether or not a person was motivated by a dislike for Blacks, Jews, homosexuals, or some other officially protected minority when he took some action against one of them will determine his punishment, and anything that he has said or written in the past may be used to infer what his motivation was. "Hate crime" will have become "thought crime."
Lest there be any doubt that this is what the Jews actually are aiming for, consider the following comments by Jewish lawyer Bruce Fein, who writes on legal topics for a number of publications. The comments come from a feature article by him published in the May 1, 1990, edition of the Washington Times, and the article in turn is based on his remarks at an Oxford-Northwestern Debate in Washington the preceding month:
"Should speech intended to ignite religious or racial animosity be prohibited? Let the answer speak from the weeping cemeteries around the world overflowing with the victims of racial and religious prejudice. ...What is the paramount purpose of speech in a civilized society? It is to trigger contemplation, reason and tolerance for competing ideas as the moving force for private and political action. ...What is the purpose of racially or religiously bigoted speech? It is to arouse unthinking hatred, violence and intolerance in the audience... In sum, the invectives of the racial or religious bigot are no more free speech than is [sic] the vulgar pornographic ululations of Annie Sprinkle a cousin of the Bolshoi Ballet. If the law supposes otherwise, as Mr. Bumble observed, "the law is a ass, a idiot." If racially or religiously bigoted speech were innocuous, then it might be ignored by governments. But it is not.
The ugliest marks in the history of the United States have stemmed from the incitements to racial prejudice practiced by Theodore Bilbo, Orville Faubus, the Ku Klux Klan, and the producers of "The Birth of a Nation." Diatribes of these types create an explosive social nitroglycerine waiting for an epithet or racial incident to spark violence. ...It is said that if racially or religiously bigoted speech is squelched, there will be no stopping point to prevention of genuine free speech. Nonsense! The progress of civilization has been the progress of making refinements and differentiations in the law. Prohibitions on racially or religiously derogatory speech have existed in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, West Germany, and elsewhere without undermining democracy, political dissent or debate. ...Prohibiting racially and religiously bigoted speech is praiseworthy because it seeks to elevate, not to degrade, because it draws from human experience, not from woolly dogmas or academic slogans, because it salutes reason as the backbone of freedom and tolerance. Is that clear enough?"
Those "woolly dogmas" and "academic slogans" this smart-mouth Jew boy dismisses with a sneer are the things that the founders of this nation were prepared to defend with their lives, things that men of our race have given their lives for often in the past. He and his fellow Jews evidently believe, however, that the present generation of Americans have had their minds and their spines sufficiently softened by 40 years of Jewish propaganda so that they won't even look up from their television screens when our freedom to speak our minds is taken away from us and Jewish "reason" becomes the law of the land.
He is correct, of course, in indicating that speech is restricted in many other countries -- although hardly without undermining dissent or debate. In Canada, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and Sweden, to mention just a few places, the Jews have succeeded in making it a criminal offense to question their perennially profitable "Holocaust" claims, for example. The German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel, whose case has been discussed several times in these pages, has been convicted and sentenced in Canada for that very "hate crime." In Sweden last December a radio broadcaster was sentenced to prison and the license of his station was revoked because he criticized Israeli actions against Palestinians in a way that Jews considered derogatory.
George Orwell missed the date by a few years -- at least, for the United States -- but it is clear that if B'nai B'rith has its way the Thought Police will be a fact of life here in the near future, and racism will be a crime -- not Jewish racism (also known as Zionism), of course, or Black racism, just racism of the White variety. Mr. Fein and his compatriots in the ADL are counting on having patriotic Americans disarmed by that time, so that they will be powerless to resist those designated by the government to enforce the laws against "thought crime." Be that as it may, Fein and Company should be aware that there still will be a few White Americans, with or without assault rifles, willing to die for their freedom -- but they don't intend to be the only ones to die. Got that, Jew boy?