http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/hitler/articles/99ClareBrushUp.htm

From that solid foundation he would lead the listener out of his comfort-zone into some conclusions about Jewish power, especially control of mass-media and abuse of that power to the detriment of the White race.

That’s the kind of argument that Dr. Pierce made. If you inject into it some claim that is questionable or hard-to-verify, it loses its power.

I remember when I was writing ADVs about Iraq in early 2003, I mentioned in passing the attack on the World Trade Center saying something to the effect of, maybe or maybe not Israel had something to do with it. I left it to the listener to have his own opinion, because it was not essential to my presentation. I got a letter from some crank excoriating me for not steadfastly espousing some variant of the 911 Truth position. In this person’s view I was NOT ALLOWED to bypass the question. No, I should distract all attention from my argument about Iraq by making a controversial claim that I had researched very little. Some people don’t seem to understand that when you are teaching people something, keeping it simple is the way to go.

I noticed Pierce’s contempt for conspiracy theorists in his broadcasts. It’s true that once the racial component is understood it becomes glaringly obvious how out in the open this take over is. Also, I can sympathize with Pierce of not wanting to be roped in with the conspiracy theorists of the 90s and 00s. Most have done incredible damage by making outrageous claims, playing loose with facts, avoiding politically-incorrect connections altogether, keeping strange physical appearances, and running their organizations like internet marketing operations.

But Pierce was none of the above. The work he did was very tight and damning and his motives were pure. It’s unlikely I would have any understanding of racial issues if it were not for him. If he decided to expose the utter fraudulence of these false-flag events, his material would have been well documented and most convincing.

After reading your post, you are suggesting Pierce genuinely believed Usama bin Laden masterminded 9/11, “Al Qaeda” bombed the US Cole, McVeigh wasn’t a useful idiot of a larger agenda, and the ’93 WTC attack was executed by Islamists with no outside assistance. I figured he knew the real score, but was taking some kind of strategic position.

Our enemies have given us tremendous opportunities to deliver devastating blows in exposing these events. Our most credible and articulate are side-stepping or taking soft positions on these issues because of the muddled water deliberately surrounding them. Our opponents are probably laughing at our timidity. They deceive apologetically and lie boldly with such regularity while our side prefers to play it safe. These false-flag events are so powerful because they illustrate how treacherous and treasonous our enemies are, how well-developed and entrenched their networks are, and their total control over our media. If channeled properly, these could be catalyzing issues with vast emotional and psychological effects.

As the real details are getting out, awareness is growing. The newer crop is less compromising and more receptive to the complete picture anyway.

A great point you made is the necessity of having a source telling the unvarnished truth–as ugly and uncomfortable as it may be. The politically-correct leftist criticism of Israel and Ron Paul’s blowback position are steps in the right direction, but are simply not accurate. If the truth was understood, this criticism would heighten exponentially to rage. In a struggle for our very survival, how is it advantageous to fight with our hands tied behind our backs?

He also thought that many of them were rather gullible and would believe almost anything. They were not of the quality he was looking for. They were also unlikely to be productive; they would flint from one fad to the next.

But conspiracy theorists were far fewer in those days than they are now. A lot of people looking for answers to what is going on and looking for alternatives to the mainstream media find Alex Jones — and then get totally misdirected. Carolyn, I hope you will someday do a show on him, on his Jewish connections, and on his lies. He fools so many people.

Back to false flags: The Jewish mind favors doing things “by way of deception” and this certainly encompasses false flag operations. They do work for them, but when truly exposed they work against them in a potent manner.

It is not really clear what is to be gained anyway, by arguing that the 9-11 attack was not a manifestation of blowback from pro-Israel foreign policy.

“The Truth” is to be gained, rather than a support for anyone’s political position. This is exactly what I was talking about last Monday night, and I think my guest for tomorrow’s program will probably bring it up, too.

EDIT: IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED that Dr. Pierce died a year after 9/11 when the serious work exposing the impossibility of the official story had not yet come to light. It’s not surprising that he saw it only in terms of how it affected the White racialism movement.

This program did not mention 9/11 or Oklahoma City, so I won’t allow any more comments about those events here.

There were MANY people on patriotard radio discussing conspiracy theories about the Oklahoma City Bombing and 9-11. The vast majority of such people that seem to put so much energy into trying to expose secrets do so at the expense of dealing with the obvious: most of those patriotard personalities are, at least publicly, kosher and non-racial. (That seems to be slightly less true today.)

I think Dr. Pierce saw conspiracy-theorizing in matters of great uncertainty as an energy-drain and a diversion. You can hear him in his speech Our Cause in the 1970s ridicule in passing the conspiracy-theory about fluoridation. I think he saw people heavily focused on conspiracy-theories as afraid to talk about obvious facts that really matter. That’s how I generally see them.

It is not really clear what is to be gained anyway, by arguing that the 9-11 attack was not a manifestation of blowback from pro-Israel foreign policy. Many people saw it that way immediately; although it provided an excuse for Middle-East war, it simultaneously made many people ask whether support for Israel was worth the cost. There is a lot more criticism of U.S. support for Israel today because of the 9-11 attack, especially from the left (e.g. Walt and Mearsheimer).

As for the Oklahoma City Bombing, I think Dr. Pierce made it clear that he respected McVeigh. He respected his individual initiative and willingness to sacrifice himself for a principle. I don’t think he ever discounted that McVeigh had collaborators, maybe some that were not caught. What else should he have said about it? That whole question was absolutely beaten to death, even in mainstream media. I remember the ABC 20/20 piece about it.

A lot of the discussion about the OKC Bombing in the patriotard milieu was very misguided, based for example on the persistent assumption of an AN/FO bomb instead of nitromethane. These people also didn’t understand how debris from the Murrah Building could have ended up across the street, which is really not hard to figure out.

There is a kind of defeatism in the tendency to say that initiatives of individuals or small groups that have any significant impact must always be false-flag operations. I think McVeigh showed the emptiness and cowardice of the militia movement and its vainglorious posturing. I think that they therefore had an emotional investment in denying that one man could do so much. By contrast, I think Dr. Pierce looked at what McVeigh did, creating a giant shaped charge of nitromethane cylinders to blow the front off of a building, and decided quite rationally that yes, one man can do this. The reason why others have not done it is not inability.

There are many things short of blowing up Federal buildings that would be useful for the cause, like waging an information-campaign, or assisting somebody else to do it. Most people that sympathize with the cause won’t even do that. Again, the reason is not inability.

Circle
Submitted on 2012/06/28 at 9:38 pm

This question is directed at Hadding. I agree with you that William Pierce was the most effective spokesman for white interests. He was clearly viewed as the greatest threat to Jewish power. My research points to the OKC bombing as a false flag event with one objective being to discredit Pierce and frighten the public away from sympathizing with his message. My question is: Why did Pierce not call out the utter fraudulence of the OKC bombing, the ’93 WTC Attack, the USS Cole, and 9/11?

Considering Pierce was a total news junkie and had unparalleled understanding of their behavior and methods, I have difficulty accepting this wasn’t on his radar. Why would he fight with his hands tied behind his back with respect to these foremost issues?

EvelynHill

Submitted on 2012/06/29 at 2:57 am

WLP thought that OKC bombing was the result of McVeigh’s disgust over the government’s actions at Waco. He did not see it as a false flag. McVeigh had no connection to the NA, so his actions should not have been taken as “discrediting” the NA or WLP. Sure, McVeigh bought a lot of material from National Vanguard Books (including the Turner Diaries) but so did a lot of people. He tried to meet up with NA members through an answering machine service (this was before the Internet) but the unit leader in charge of calling people back didn’t return his call since he thought he “sounded funny.”

So instead of getting in contact with NA members, McVeigh got in contact with folks from Elohim City. Elohim City seemed to be full of agents provocateur and their dupes to me, so I (personally) would not rule out the possibility of a false flag operation.

CY: “So why do you continue to call him a “respected presence” in the WN movement.”

Because he is, at least in some WN circles. For instance, ask Kevin MacDonald, David Duke, Greg Johnson, Tom Sunic, and others for their opinion of Mark Weber and you’ll find that it’s a positive one. That strikes me as falling within the parameters of “respected presence”. This does not mean that I share this opinion, or that all WN’s share it. I trust that difference is apparent to you.

You are confusing me. If YOU don’t share this opinion, why put it forth? KM, DD, GJ, TS are all on record, with you, that Holocaust Revisionism is not “helpful” to White Nationalism. (Revisionists, btw, believe that WN is absolutely not helpful to Holocaust Revisionism.) DD is not as much that way, but still avoids it and chooses “Zionism”, like Weber. So naturally, Mark Weber is now respected by them, even though MW says he is not a WN. But he is a “Big Tent” believer. That’s what really ties these people together.

A final note to CY: As for solving the JQ, the only solution I see is mass extermination on a nationwide scale. I’ve said this before. Short of a mass deportation, mass extermination is the only solution. Men like David Duke is too timid to say so, however. So is Kevin MacDonald. So is everyone else in the WN movement except Alex Linder now and William Pierce in the past.

Are you prepared to testify to a congressional committee on that? LOL. Where did you say that? Why, then, would you be standing up for Mark Weber? And saying WN should not be associated with National Socialism or historical revisionism? You could very easily be someone trying to make me say things to destroy this network. Who do you work for?

Actually, I (like many others at the time) believed that Strom was the best candidate for the chairmanship but Strom showed himself too weak in the end to assert his demands.

My recollection is that Kevin Strom was offered the chairmanship but turned it down. It was not a matter, as you seem to suppose, of wanting the position but being “too weak to assert his demands.”