Tuesday, June 27, 2006

(ADV) Rhetoric And The Media

Rhetoric and the Media

By Shaun Walker

American Dissident Voices Broadcast of June 11, 2005

Traitors to their people: George Wallace and Boris Yeltsin

Running for office can a method of reaching people with new ideas, but any White nationalist who runs for public office must maintain a racial separatist message or they become part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

Hello, welcome to American Dissident Voices, I'm Shaun Walker. The other day I was reading a magazine called the Economist. This is a British weekly newsmagazine that certainly has a Capitalist angle in regards to economics and an extremely leftist, Zionist agenda when it comes to race, Jews, and most social issues. Note that the tactic of linking the formerly defined "right-wing" position of economics, with the formerly leftist-defined position on race and other issues is becoming more and more common. For an economic determinist, the subtleties to this trend might not be so apparent, but to biological determinists such as ourselves, this trend is ominous.

The article I was reading was about the Russian Jew, Khodorkovsky, and the criminal charges against him, apparently arranged at the insistence of Russian President Putin. For someone aware of the Jewish role in society, the article borders on funny to the degree that obvious pro-Jewish rhetoric is used. As I was reading this, however, I realized that most Whites who read this article probably wouldn't even notice.

Now, any good journalist knows that almost any event can be reported in any manner desired. This is what is called "putting a spin" on an event. The word "rhetoric" best describes the words used for how a spin is put on any story. Rhetoric is simply the art of influencing people with words. Now the huge advertisement market uses rhetoric in their field, but they also use imagery which is more effective. But for the pure study of rhetoric we need to only look at the words picked and think about why they were picked.

There is no such thing as a spoken word that has not been influenced by something. For the Jewish-dominated media to continue with its stranglehold on information flow, they need to continually put their perspective on each and every important event. If they fail to do this, then people might start viewing events in a different manner. Common sense might then allow them to come to their own conclusions, which would be great for White people, but a major threat to the Jews. So, Jews will put the most ridiculous angle on any story. By-and-large, the public seems to accept this Jewish spin without question. This isn't because the public is "dumb like a stump," but rather it is just the nature of any given mass of people.

If you were to sit down and talk with the average person and bring up certain events and the way the media reported the event, you can get two basic responses. One is that the person finds it interesting, because they had not stopped to think about the matter much. You will often find that the new way in which the event is presented makes perfect sense to them. This is good and is a positive element in all societies. These are the kinds of people that the National Alliance is trying to reach out to. They are naturally curious and do not possess a dogmatic obedience to the media or necessarily towards authority either.

The second type of response, is from people who are those who just do not see outside of the box, nor do they try to. These people represent the large majority numerically, but have a clear minority of Will Power and Wherewithal. Those two components are the keys to gaining power and maintaining it, therefore this last group of people, although numerically larger, will never call the shots in any society. This is just the way that Mother Nature has ordained life to be. These people are politically naïve, especially in regard to the media. They think that events happen around the world and reporters go to these places and just report the events. They see no reason to read more than one story about any event.

Now, we would presume that those who actually read the news are already a cut above the rest (as it often seems that many don't even do this). Yet those who do read don't question the media and don't understand rhetoric.

They believe what they read, because it's in print, or what they see, because it's on TV. Many of these people have an honest belief that there is some sort of government body that monitors the news for accuracy. They literally think that if Connie Chung or Dan Rather or Mike Wallace were to say something that wasn't true, then those people would get into trouble.

A perfect example of this was the recent media circus with Newsweek magazine's story about the Islamic Koran being flushed down the toilet in front of Muslims in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The American public sees that a story came under fire and was retracted. Newsweek magazine, the second largest weekly newsmagazine in America, now pretends that the story was a complete error. This in the public's mind shows that there is some sort of "truth panel" that maintains watch over the media for accuracy.

At the same time, virtually everyone has heard the phrase "bias in the media." To millions of Americans this simply means that a publication is very conservative or very liberal, and they don't pay much more attention than that. The fact is, for the large, mainstream publications in America, they are about 95% identical on most issues. Like Senator Huey Long loved to say with regards to the Democrats and the Republicans, one will skin you from the head down, the other from the feet up. But, most people find themselves either slightly right or left of center, in the existing political paradigm that is part of our society. So, when the public hears the phrase "bias in the media" the liberal-leaning person pictures Rush Limbaugh and the conservative leaning person might think of Senator Ted Kennedy. But, both sides get caught on the substance of the event and then they tend to look to their favorite media spokesperson for the most accurate information. All the while, they don't question the legitimacy of the so-called facts, which the media never debates. What variables that the media masters chose to debate become the only parts of the event that are allowed to be questioned. With this sort of manipulation of the events, whoever brings to light the so-called facts is the master of the event's outcome with regards to the public perception of what happened.

Herein lies the power of rhetoric, and one factor that allows the media to continue to rule us with such an iron grip. If the so-called facts that go un-debated are in error, then all the energy going into debating the issue is flawed from the beginning.

A perfect example of this is with the biggest fraud to become championed by racially aware White people since World War Two; namely Governor George Wallace of Alabama. Without now going into great depth on George Wallace, it is safe to say that he didn't understand or believe in the necessity of racial separation, but rather was a political opportunist of the worst possible sort. Wallace actually lost his first election for Governor back in 1958 when he ran on the platform of racial integration. The only man in that election that truly understood the dynamics and importance of race was Admiral John Crommelin, who only received one percent of the vote. Admiral Crommelin later became a founding member of the National Alliance in the early 1970s, but that is a different story.

The fact is the good Admiral would have been able to debate the racial separatist ideology for White people on the grounds of biological determination, whereas George Wallace only took the stance of political purity of the Constitution, for States Rights and for economic reasons. I can remember watching, with the feeling of utter disgust, an old debate George Wallace had on why he was opposed to racial integration of the schools and every answer he had was designed to sidestep the race issue all together. George Wallace was a good debater and knew how to avoid setting traps for himself, but the fact remains that he never brought up the facts of race. So, the public watching these debates never started to think about the race issue in a positive light.

This is one reason that the National Alliance will always remain an openly racial organization, because the only way to get the public to become racially aware is to bring up the race issue to them.

The media was able to control the entire 1960s debate on the race issue because of the rhetoric they picked, and the non-racial, so called "White Supremacist" George Wallace, who the media also carefully groomed.

At that time, millions and millions of Whites would have mobilized with firearms to defend their White nation. They were looking for a leader who spoke the truth on race, but all they got was this total fraud Wallace. Years later George Wallace denounced racism as evil and even crowned Miss Black America.

During the political debates over racially-mixing the schools and forced busing, the American public listened in. They heard the liberal side which denounced racism; and then they heard the conservative side, which also denounced racism. So the public, having heard what they thought were both sides of some very heated race debates, believed they were now informed. Joe Six-pack, now knowing the whole story, could at least come to the conclusion that neither side wanted anything to do with Whites who were trying to make sure that White people don't go the way of the Dodo bird. Racism must be bad, Joe Six-pack concluded.

Ironically, the race issue is not suppressed: in fact it is still constantly talked about, but with the monotone opinion that racism is just bad and everyone with any sense of goodness knows as much. This is a powerful method of suppressing the truth. Every single person and group which has thought they could help the White race while skirting around the issue, while saying that they have every intention of helping White people, has not helped our Cause in the slightest. The very fact that these people fall victim to the Jews' trap and are afraid to say what is in their hearts in itself guarantees defeat.

This denial of the most important facts and the use of pointless variables for the public debate is how the media can reduce an important issue to a Jewish victory time and time again.

This can be illustrated with many important world events. I think one of the most obvious media spins is in Russia, when the Russian Duma impeached the extremely corrupt and incompetent President Boris Yeltsin. Now Yeltsin and his Jewish wife were obvious lap-dogs for the Jew World Order. So, when a nationalist group of Russians, which consisted of the vast majority of the Duma and the Vice President of Russia, decided to impeach Yeltsin, the US media, along with most of the media in Western world, suddenly sided with Boris Yeltsin. Now Yeltsin was a walking, talking 25 car pile-up. He couldn't screw things up worse if he tried, yet the US media suddenly came to his side -- and with a twist.

The US media, both the conservative and liberal varieties alike, all reported with absolute abandon, that Boris Yeltsin needed to beat this violent coup as this would save democracy, and the 600 leading members of the coup were a dictatorship in waiting. When I first heard this stupid analogy, so many years ago, live on TV during these events, I think I actually laughed out loud. The Jew-dominated media was actually saying that a democracy was contained all within one pro-Zionist President who was not only being impeached, but who had called in the military to fire shells into the Duma building itself, against a supposed '600-man dictatorship' in waiting. Now who says the Jews don't have a sense of humor?

I was fascinated. I thought the initial media spin was just too stupid, and that they would be forced to find a new angle to explain events. Nope. Day after day, every spin doctor from around America talked about the one-man democracy of Boris Yeltsin and the evil, nationalistic 600-man dictatorship. The only 'new' angles which popped up from time to time were bizarre: One was that the members of the Duma were old-fashioned and couldn't see the future. Now how is that for good rhetoric? If you don't agree with the Jewish agenda, then you are old-fashioned or out-of-step with the times.

When this was all going on, I talked to many people around me about the reasons for the events. It is somewhat scary how 20 different people can have so many varied opinions on most issues, but when confronted with the Jewish media's version of the truth, they suddenly fall lockstep into ideological tune. Everyone around me repeated the same line: democracy was being saved.

I remember talking to people and saying "Don't you think it's bizarre that the media is calling the Duma members a dictatorship, but Yeltsin by himself a democracy?" To this the answer would be, "Oh, but Yeltsin is the great champion of Democracy and he has to win to save Russia." To which I would say, doesn't the Duma have the power to impeach the President and, if so, and the President doesn't like it and the President calls in the Army to fire artillery in to the Duma Building, isn't that a dictatorship? How can hundreds of people be a dictatorship and one man a democracy? At this point an uncomfortable blank stare would join our conversation.

Now I'm not advocating democracy here. I think democracy is such a disaster that it must be opposed, but for the sake of my argument with these people, I just kept bringing up the point of one-man democracy and a 600-man dictatorship. Their brains just would reject it. They had seen on the TV and had even heard their favorite spin doctor say the same stupid thing, so how could I bring up a different set of facts? The debate was supposed to be between the pro-American Yeltsin and the anti-American nationalists. I knew bringing up the Jewish angle would make the debate too difficult for most, so I just stuck to the topic of this obviously flawed rhetoric of what a democracy is and a dictatorship is.

Now, if we were to step away from this event as it occurred and we talk to the same group of people about that event some years later, while first allowing them to read an informed article or two, the result is of course quite different. If they are shown the choice of rhetoric, it is easy for most people to see through the events. This is just human nature.

The general public will swim with the current train of thought, or at least as it is presented to them. They will react like the furry little lemmings that are eager to blend into the pack, no matter how stupid the issue may be. I'm not against democracy because I don't like the institution of voting or for people being able to choose things for themselves. I'm against democracy because it is currently a tool that the Jews and their wealthy capitalist allies use as a means to deceive societies into thinking that they somehow have more freedom. The average person in England in the time of King Henry the VIII had more personal freedom than a person has today in Tony Blair's England. Democracy is no formula for freedom. And with the current media in the hands of our enemies, the entire voting system is subject to the emotional message that the media puts on any issue, not the facts. If the facts go against the Jewish agenda, then they will be twisted. Night becomes day, a national assembly becomes a dictatorship, and a pro-Zionist drunkard who orders the Army to pulverize the nation's capital becomes the symbol of freedom and democracy.

The public isn't stupid in the sense they are morons. The public, this public today, in America, Russia, England, anywhere, is composed of people who have a limited political understanding, which means that their votes cancel out the votes of those that actually know what is going on. This can never be any different. The status quo power structure likes this arrangement, because while they are in the seat of power, they can maintain their control.

As long as the public is denied the facts, they will be unable to grasp the most important themes of the day, and will be unable to figure out exactly what is going on. This state of affairs exists for virtually every subject, including the issue of race. This is one huge reason why it is absolutely imperative that the National Alliance always keep our message openly racial. The public will not come to the proper racial conclusion on their own. What we have to do is increase the intensity of our message's exposure to the general public. It must not be reduced, or changed to a message that avoids the important issues altogether.

It is an absolute fact that America or any other White country will not become a racially separatist country unless a large group takes control and teaches the public our racial message. We will not be able to gain this political power until we bring many more people into our way of thinking. Therefore the rhetoric that we choose for our message must be racially charged and constructed in the most understandable and acceptable manner. Some pessimists might say that the Jewish media is bigger and we can't just buy CNN and end their brainwashing. They miss the point: the Jews are forced to continuously work at herding the public. The Jews are now swamped with trying to hold their huge lie together. They spend their time adding another lie on top of another to keep the whole rotten structure intact. This allows the thinking segment of society to see the errors in logic contained within the Jew's rhetoric. Take for example the war in Iraq. It was so annoying to see millions of Americans, who had no concern for Iraq in the slightest, suddenly demand that country be invaded to save baseball, apple pie, and Chevrolet. Later, these same people were told that Iraq wasn't really a threat, that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction aimed at America. Now, however, the public is told by the media and the vast majority of elected officials that these huge lies aren't really anything to be concerned over. This is from the system of democracy, which is supposed to be the guarantee of open honest government.

On the other hand, there are a significant number of people who are angry over the lies they were force fed, day and night. It is to these people we need to concentrate our efforts. They are the ones who can change things, who have influence.

Those people who have already forgotten about the huge WMD lies, about how Saddam Hussein was poised to attack America and Great Britain, those people should remain democrats. They can pull that damn voting arm in their election booths every 2-4 years until their little, democratic fingers fall off.

But again I must say that this doesn't mean the National Alliance is against White nationalists running for office. What we are against is when someone runs for office and drops the racial message. The entire point of running for office is to use that platform as a means to further spread our message. When a White nationalist decides that he must "mainstream" his message, when he abandons race as his central platform, his brain stops working and he morphs into a pointless conservative.

So, let me state this loud and clearly. The Jews have gained much power from a careful use of rhetoric designed to support their goals. We must do the same to gain back control of our countries. Any White nationalist who runs for public office must maintain a racial separatist message or they become part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

If a White nationalist can hold their own and bring Our Cause into the public arena through an election, then we will praise you and might even help you. But if the campaign transforms into a George Wallace-clone, we will condemn you.

The use of elections by White nationalists must only be a means to spread our message and to gain power for our race. Anyone who decides to take this route must study rhetoric. Such a person must know how to debate and, above all, have the courage to openly discuss race in the media and on TV. A candidate will not be able to trick the public by being elected as an "anti-racist" and then later try to implement racial policies. The public first must be made aware of our racial message, and be in agreement with it, before we will be ready to rule. We can't put the cart in front of the horse. We need to stay focused, steadfast, loyal, and become very, very active. Our message is a part of biological law. Our enemies rule by ways of deception, we will win by exposing the truth.

Thank you for being with me today.