Defying the Censors by Dr. William Luther Pierce

American Dissident Voices Broadcast of November 4, 2000 Defying the Censors by Dr. William Pierce Hello! Did you notice a small news item a few weeks ago in some newspapers? Lucie Blackman, a 21-year-old English girl, disappeared in Tokyo....

American Dissident Voices Broadcast of November 4, 2000

Defying the Censors
by Dr. William Pierce


Did you notice a small news item a few weeks ago in some U.S.
newspapers? Lucie Blackman, a 21-year-old English girl, disappeared in
Tokyo. Her father, Tim Blackman, a very wealthy real-estate developer in
Britain, was afraid that she had been kidnapped by one of the sex-slave
rings that operate in Japan and taken to Hong Kong. Because Mr. Blackman
is very rich, he was able to make a fuss in the newspapers and to offer
a £100,000 reward for information about his daughter. Otherwise Lucie
would have been just one of the hundreds of attractive White girls who
simply "disappear" every year while traveling in the Middle East or the
Far East, and there wouldn't have been a peep in the media or any notice
paid by government officials.

The fuss Mr. Blackman was making about his daughter galvanized the
Japanese government, which didn't want any bad publicity to keep Western
tourists away. Tokyo police began an investigation. They haven't found
Lucie's body yet, but now they have a pretty good idea what happened to
her -- and to a number of other White girls.

Lucie was a tall girl -- five feet, ten inches -- a slender, blue-eyed
blonde, a beautiful White girl of the sort that the small, dark men of
other races crave. And because of the craving Oriental men have for
tall, blonde women, Lucie worked as a hostess in a private club for
wealthy Japanese businessmen, Tokyo's Casablanca Club, where she was
earning about $5000 a month. She was, in other words, working as a
high-priced prostitute. There are many exclusive clubs for rich
businessmen in Tokyo, all of them stocked with tall blondes, some
earning even more than Lucie.

Japanese detectives traced Lucie to the luxury ocean side condominium of
a Japanese tycoon, Joji Obara. She had been seen leaving the Casablanca
Club with Obara in his red Ferrari. When police searched Obara's
condominium they found a collection of videos he had made of himself
performing various sex acts on more than 40 other White girls. The
videos, according to police, were "horrific." Obara first drugged the
girls and then sexually degraded them in ways too unpleasant to describe
here. Obara is in custody, and police have been searching offshore for
Lucie's remains but have not yet found them.

Now, what I am talking about with you today is not a crime story in the
usual sense of the word, and it's not primarily about what members of
other races are doing to our people; it is about what we have done to
ourselves. Here's a question: Why do so many of our young women put
themselves in the sort of jeopardy Lucie put herself in?

Of course, there's the money; there aren't many jobs which will pay a
21-year-old girl $5000 a month. But Lucie didn't really need the money
since her father was a multimillionaire, although she may have thought
that the allowance Daddy gave her was not enough to satisfy her craving
for clothes, jewelry, and the like.

A more significant answer, I believe, is that our women do what Lucie
did because we permit them to do it. As far as I have been able to
determine, Blackman and his daughter had a close relationship. She was
not alienated from her family. Blackman could have prevented his
daughter from working as a "hostess" for Japanese businessmen, but he
didn't. It would have been "sexist" for him to try to prevent his
daughter from doing whatever she felt like doing, even selling herself
to rich businessmen. And it would have been "racist" for him to tell her
not to have sex with rich Japanese businessmen, in particular. As I
mentioned last week, Brits are even more inclined to be Politically
Correct than Americans are. They are more conformist, more
authoritarian. When it is Politically Correct for a father to give his
blessing to his daughter having sex with Asians or mestizos or Blacks, a
right-thinking lemming father will do it.

You know, when Negro football player O.J. Simpson slashed the throats of
his beautiful, blonde wife Nicole and her Jewish lover six years ago, my
reaction was, "Good riddance!" White women who voluntarily have sex with
non-Whites deserve to have their throats cut, all of them. And because
Lucie willingly put herself at the disposal of Japanese men, it is hard
to feel sorry for her when one of them turned out to be a pervert who
murdered her. During the Simpson trial my opinion was that Nicole's
father also deserved to have his throat cut because of the way he had
raised his daughter. He had failed to teach her that she must never,
under any circumstances, permit a non-White to touch her, and for that
failure he deserved the severest punishment. And I could say the same
thing about Mr. Blackman now, but I guess I really shouldn't.

And the reason I shouldn't is that lemmings simply aren't morally
accountable. They have no true moral consciousness. They do not have the
capacity to be either good or evil. They simply think and do whatever is
fashionable at the moment, whatever they think is expected of them. Of
course, that doesn't mean that some of them shouldn't be killed from
time to time, but it's more a matter of herd management, of herd
control, than punishment in the moral sense.

>From the beginning of recorded history up until 30 or 40 years ago any
father in a White society whose daughter copulated with non-Whites would
lose everyone's respect; he would become a social outcast. A father's
duty was to raise his daughters as well as his sons to have pride in
themselves, in their family, in their community, in their race. In
ancient times, if a White girl were caught with a Black or an Asian,
then it was the father's responsibility to cut her throat. The Roman
paterfamilias, for example, understood and accepted that responsibility.

Well, the American or the British father of today, typically a
potbellied couch potato swilling his beer and watching his ball games
while his children do whatever they please, has come a long way down
from the paterfamilias, but I suppose it would not be entirely fair to
blame him alone. The Roman father did what he did because that is what
his society expected of him, demanded of him. The 21st century father
does nothing, because his society expects nothing of him; in fact, it
virtually prohibits him from doing anything. He has been emasculated and
disempowered. He has become a sorry, impotent figure indeed.

Of course, the way in which we raise our daughters is just one symptom
of the sickness of our society -- but it is an important symptom. We
abdicate our family responsibilities; we let the Jews teach our
daughters, primarily through advertising and television entertainment,
that they should have no pride in their race, that there should be no
constraints on their behavior, that they should do whatever they want to
do, whatever their peers are seen doing on the television screen; and
then we just dump them out into the multicultural jungle to fend for
themselves, with no protection and no guidance. It is no wonder that so
many of them follow the course of Nicole or Lucie. They see nothing
wrong with it. They've never been taught what they should and shouldn't
do -- except, of course, they have been taught by Hollywood and Madison
Avenue that it is especially modern and commendable, especially cool, a
sign of sophistication, to bed down with every piece of non-White
subhumanity which comes strutting or shuffling down the sidewalk.

So if we want to improve the behavior of our daughters, if we want them
to avoid the fate of Nicole and Lucie, we need to do more than preach to
their fathers. We need to change the society which sets the standards
for the behavior of fathers and imposes certain responsibilities on
fathers and gives them the freedom to exercise those responsibilities.
And we need to change the way in which our society treats our women.

Well, what we need to do and what we are able to do are very often far
apart, of course, and that's the case with changing our society in such
a way as to give us strong and proud and healthy families again which
produce strong and proud and healthy sons and daughters instead of
confused, rootless, alienated, and defenseless young people like Nicole
and Lucie, who have no sense of identity and no racial pride, whose only
aim is seeking pleasure and comfort, and who are at the mercy of every
alien predator out there. We can't really change our society until we
can change the directions in which the mass media are pushing it.

I'll talk about the media again in a moment, but first let's think about
some of the changes we'd like to make in our society after we regain
control of our media -- at least, about one change, and that's the role
and nature of the family.

Many people believe that we're all much smarter today than we were a
thousand years ago, because we can fly to the moon and we have cell
phones and television. And they believe that because we're smarter we
also have a better society, which has been made possible by our greater
intelligence and all of our new gadgets. But I don't share that belief.

The gadgets we have today are the consequence of a recent technological
revolution which has very deep roots in the past, and the people who are
implementing that technological revolution today are not really smarter
than the people who established those roots in the past. The bright and
creative men who give us cell phones and all sorts of other
microelectronic gadgetry today are standing on the shoulders of men at
least as bright and creative who gave us our first understanding of
electricity and electromagnetic fields and radiation hundreds of years
ago: men such as Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell.

And the men who designed the rockets and the spaceships which took us to
the moon, men like Wernher von Braun, were standing on the shoulders of
earlier geniuses, such as Isaac Newton. And so it goes, back to the
ancient Greeks and earlier. Of course, we can't give IQ tests to the
ancient Greeks, but if we could -- if we could take a thousand Greek
teenagers from Athens and Sparta of 25 centuries ago and compare them
with a thousand White American teenagers today -- I believe the Greeks
would leave the Americans in their dust. In fact, I believe that
intelligence and creativity have been going downhill since the Neolithic
Revolution first made it possible for the less bright elements of
society to be sheltered from the natural selective forces which used to
keep us fit. And since the introduction of the modern welfare state in
the last century, we have plummeted. Certainly, a very high percentage
of today's couch potatoes would never live long enough to reproduce if
the technological infrastructure which shelters and supports them were
taken away.

So the ancients hadn't yet developed the tools with which to fly to the
moon, but they did understand some things about families and other
social structures and institutions. These were structures and
institutions which had evolved over hundreds of thousands of years and
adapted themselves very closely to our nature, our biological and
psychological makeup. Every now and then a very bright leader might
introduce some change, some improvement, but the changes were made
slowly and very carefully, because no one wanted to mess up what Nature
had spent so long developing and refining. No one wanted to mess up what
worked and did the job it was intended to do, which was to keep the
society, the tribe, the community, the nation, strong and healthy by
producing strong and healthy young men and women to form each successive

But we in our arrogance have made some very drastic changes in a big
hurry, and we've made these changes without consideration for the
consequences. That's why when I try to understand what's wrong with the
society of today and the family of today and how we might improve them,
I often look at older models. I look at what worked in the past, before
we began making such reckless changes. I don't recommend that we try to
model the American family of the 21st century on the Roman family of 23
or 24 centuries ago in detail. But I do think that we must keep in mind
that, technological advances notwithstanding, the fundamental nature of
our people hasn't really changed -- except that we're not quite as smart
on the average as the Romans were. We need to keep in mind that the
basic human qualities we have and that we must deal with, the Romans
also had and dealt with -- and did it fairly successfully. The family
must have a mother and a father living together with complementary
roles. There must be a mother at home in charge of the children while
the father is engaged in the task of supporting the family. And there
must be a strong central authority vested in the father of the family.
That much we must have again as a basic structure. Beyond that the
family must mold and guide the children so that they grow up with the
proper values. That task must not be left to the street, to the
playmates, to the passing fashions of the day.

Well, that's a pretty skimpy outline without much detail. I don't like
to build castles in the air. I don't like to make detailed plans until
we have the means for implementing those plans. It's not realistic to
plan the rebuilding of our society until we have the media which control
public opinion in our own hands. I think it's good to look ahead,
however, and plan things in rough outline, to think about where we want
to go -- but our principal task now remains the recapture of our mass

And you know, sometimes I do see a glimmer of hope, a small sign that
we're making a little progress in this task. I'll give you an example. A
couple of years ago a professor from one of our major universities
approached me and said that he'd like to write a book about my
organization, the National Alliance, and its ideas and about me. I said
okay, and so he spent a month working in my national headquarters here
in West Virginia, and we talked a great deal, and he read many of the
books I recommended to him and listened to many of my radio broadcasts,
and then he spent a year writing his book.

He's Dr. Robert Griffin, and he's a professor in the Department of
Education at the University of Vermont. His book is titled The Fame of a
Dead Man's Deeds: An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William
Pierce. It's not the book I would have written on that subject. There
are a few things in the book which make me flinch and a few things which
make me blush, but it is a fair book, an objective book. And more
important it's a substantive book, a book with some real meat in it. It
does a very good job of presenting the ideas which I talk about on these
programs. And it presents them in a way which makes them very easy to
assimilate. Robert Griffin is a good writer. He knows how to present
ideas. Well, as an education professor, he ought to know how to present
ideas clearly and simply. And he does. It's a good book, a well written

After he finished the book Professor Griffin and his literary agent
began sending it to New York publishers. He already had had books
published, and he thought he'd have no trouble finding a publisher for
this one. Well, he was wrong. Dozens of major publishers read the book,
told him it was a good book, but they couldn't publish it because it
wouldn't sell. The public won't read it, they said. The public isn't
interested in that sort of thing. The public will be offended by many
things in the book. We have a formula for writing books on controversial
subjects like this, they said. It's a formula for books which will sell.
Your book doesn't fit the formula. So we're sorry, but we can't handle
it for you. We would lose money if we published it.

Dr. Griffin spent a year trying to get his book published, but he always
got the same answer. Finally last month, in desperation, he went to
Barnes and Noble, the world's largest bookseller, and asked them to
publish it on the Internet as an e-book, the way the best-selling
novelist Stephen King had one of his books published a few months ago.
And that's what they did, through their e-book division, Any Internet user can go to the web
site, pay eight dollars with his credit card, and download Dr. Griffin's
book, all 424 pages of it. Then he either can make a printed copy of the
book with his printer, or he can read it on his monitor.

Well here's what happened. On October 10 Barnes and Noble posted the
book at the site. Within a few days it moved onto the
bestseller list. That's the list of Barnes and Noble's 25 best-selling
e-books, based on sales figures for the previous two weeks. The list is
updated every day. Last week Dr. Griffin's book moved to the top of the
bestseller list. And that's where it has remained since then: the
number-one best-selling e-book from the world's largest bookseller. And
that's without any reviews in the New York Times, without any
advertising or promotion, without any book-signing parties, without
being offered in any book catalog. All that happened is that a few
people ran across the listing of the book at the Barnes and Noble e-book
site, decided to check it out, were fascinated by what they found in the
book, and began telling their friends. And the word spread from reader
to reader, like a wildfire. That is why Dr. Griffin's book about me
jumped to the top of the bestseller list and stayed there.

What does that tell us? Does it tell us that New York publishers don't
know what will sell? No, I think what it tells us is that New York
publishers are a bunch of Politically Correct cowards. They are scared
to death of publishing anything which will subject them to criticism
from the You-know-whos. They are not only lacking in imagination, they
are gutless.

This is interesting, because the book-publishing industry still has a
certain degree of independence, theoretically. There are hundreds of
book publishers in New York, and many of them are not owned or directly
controlled by Jews. So one might think that an author could find a
publisher for any book with a reasonable chance of making a profit. But
it isn't so. Publishers self-censor themselves, avoiding publishing
books which will bring the wrath of the Jews down on them. They pretend
that they can publish anything they want, that they are free men. But
they aren't. They know what they're not permitted to publish -- or at
least what they're afraid to publish. The one thing which is strong
enough to overcome their fear is greed, and I won't be surprised if when
some of them see the amazing success of Dr. Griffin's book at, their greed for profits overcomes their fear of the

Do you understand now why the Jews have been running around for the past
year or two trying to build public support for censoring the Internet,
why they've been complaining so loud about how dangerous it is to leave
the Internet uncensored? All of the big Jewish hate groups, such as the
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith and the Simon Wiesenthal Center
have been working day and night to get the politicians to pass new
legislation blocking anything they don't approve of from going on the
Internet. So far they haven't succeeded. It's important that they never
succeed. The success Dr. Griffin has had with his Politically Incorrect
book should provide new hope for everyone who had assumed that the Jews
had such a tight grip on the dissemination of information that it
couldn't be broken. It can be broken. It will be broken. The true
feelings of hundreds of thousands of concerned White Americans who have
not had a voice will come out into the open. And the lemmings will

Thanks for being with me again today.

Show More Show Less