Vanguard News Network

by Dr. William Pierce.

[…]

“Despite this reality, of a Jewish killer and a partner who raved on the Internet about wanting to “rip the arms off” racists, the Jewish media bosses were able to use the Columbine High School tragedy to fool a substantial part of the public into believing that the two killers were White racists and “neo-Nazis.” They were able to fool the public because they already had fooled the public so often in the past that they had the public conditioned to accept anything which fit the notion that White racists and “neo-Nazis” are dangerous and are likely to kill their neighbors, and that when someone does kill his neighbors, the chances are that he is a White racist or a “neo-Nazi.” That’s why we need more laws to keep guns out of the hands of White racists and to keep “neo-Nazis” off the Internet.”

[Article].

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau objects to Donald Trump’s brown immigrant ban. He said that “diversity is our strength.” Is diversity really Canada’s strength? Let’s consider that.

Canada and America were not diverse in 1955. They were mostly White. So, that means that America and Canada were both weak countries in 1955, right? Because they weren’t diverse. Right? Is that true? Of course it’s not. The opposite is true: Canada and America had far fewer social and criminal problems in 1955 than they do today (Canada currently has a serious non-White street gang problem [1]).

“Diversity” is simply a code word for “fewer and fewer White people in the White countries.” “Diversity” celebrates White genocide. Trudeau isn’t bothered by that, I guess.
.

[1] in a major 2002 Canadian police report, Whites made up only 18% of street gang membership in Canada (that percentage seems high), meaning that the majority of street gang members were non-White

That’s a very amusing claim, considering that Blacks suffer from many more diseases than Whites per capita, including sickle cell anemia, higher rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, hypertension, heart attack, stroke, AIDS and other STD’s, and also, injuries due to general Black carelessness, like from drug overdoses. Furthermore, the idea that Blacks get more diseases, or die earlier from them, due to “White racism” is baloney. There are free health clinics in every Black neighborhood (paid for by your White tax dollars), and Blacks are eligible for free health care under a wide variety of state and federal government programs (if you doubt that, do a web search: type in “free health care” plus your state, e.g., New Jersey. Some free health care programs don’t even ask about your immigration status! It’s great to be brown!).

[Article].

What bullshit: the queer lobby keeps adding letters to their acronym to make it seem like lots of people are queer. That’s false: only about 1% of the population is queer, if that many. Their acronym used to be LGBT. Now it’s LGBTQIA+. It keeps growing! Next it’ll be LGBTQIA+WTNMWKLFRBZSDPYTA. By the way, newbies, the queer lobby is overwhelmingly Jewish: almost every queer leader is, or was, a Jew.

[Article].

Sounds like a pretty good film, but one thing: the word “hero” is used much too freely in our society. Very often, “helping/saving people” is in the job description of whoever is being called a “hero” (e.g., cops, firefighters, paramedics, security guards, etc. Even airplane pilots have a duty to try and save their passengers if they crash).

[Article].

Socialism (like communism, a Jewish ideology) destroys entire countries, only not as fast as communism does [1]. America could become a socialist country within a few decades: today’s young people (most of whom are idiots) will be tomorrow’s leaders. Won’t that be fun! [2].

[Article].
.

[1] socialism was founded by two Jews: Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-1864) and Eduard Bernstein (1850-1932)

[2] Left-wing socialism is not to be confused with National Socialism, a different ideology

If “striking a Jew is like striking God,” then handcuffing a Jew is like handcuffing God. Oy veh!

[Article].

“Constitutional law? Duhh, what’s that?” But what did you expect from a left-wing federal court based in San Franqueersco?

[Article].

by Dr. William Pierce.

[…]

“This is the same sort of Politically Correct “sensitivity” which is responsible for much of the slanted news these days. In my broadcast of October 16 I told you about the kidnap, rape, sexual torture, and murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising in Arkansas by two adult homosexuals, and I pointed out that the news of this horrible crime had been blacked out completely by the national news media. Well, since my October 16 broadcast a few — not many, but a few — mainstream news media also have mentioned the incident. And many people, when they learned about the crime, wanted to know why so few media reported it, and why they took so long to get around to reporting it. And when they asked their local newspaper editors these questions they got a lot of foot-shuffling and downcast eyes in response. One media person familiar with the story blurted out, and I quote: “Nobody wants to say anything negative about homosexuals. Nobody wants to be seen on the wrong side of that issue.”

[Article].

Let’s say that you own a beautiful old house like the one shown above. Would you allow a construction crew to come to your house with sledgehammers and crack the house’s concrete foundation, thereby weakening it forever? Of course you wouldn’t, unless you’re a complete idiot. America’s founders weren’t idiots[1]. Think of America as a beautiful old house as you read this.

I’ve heard people say many times that “people have the right to their own political opinions.” That idea sounds great, doesn’t it? But what if certain opinions are harmful to the traditional American culture that our founding fathers gave us? Are those opinions free speech? America was founded as a White Western republic, not a brown, multicultural “democracy” [2]. Are anti-Western/anti-White opinions legitimate free speech? Not if they weaken the traditional American culture that our founders gave us. It’s that simple. For example, if you believe that illegal aliens should be able to come to America, without being arrested or deported, then that’s a dangerous idea and if you repeat that idea in public then it’s not constitutionally protected speech, it’s instead dangerous and subversive speech. There’s a fine line between free speech and dangerous speech. If you have dangerous ideas, and you make those ideas known publicly, then that’s subversion. Here’s a basic litmus test: is the idea/opinion anti-Western/anti-White? Was the idea shared publicly with others? If so, then it isn’t free speech. It’s dangerous speech that’s harmful to traditional American culture. If it’s an anti-White idea, then our founding fathers would have rejected it and would not have called it “free speech.”
.

[1] the founders were, however, short-sighted: they should have been much more specific when they wrote the Constitution

[2] America wasn’t regularly called a “democracy” until the 1930s when the Roosevelt administration began doing so