by Mark Farrell (m.f@zoomtown.com)
September 15, 2004

Below my comments, find the link to an interesting article that refutes the popular contention that Timothy McVeigh, the terrorist who was responsible for the federal buildings being destroyed, was somehow inspired by Dr. William Pierce's book, "The Turner Diaries."

When we scrutinize those who oppo-sed Dr. Pierce, we find he was merely a moderate in response to the hate perpetrated against him and millions of other whites. Yes, it's perfectly all right for Jews and others to lambaste whites; yet when whites so much as write a fictional work about the con-verse, we are to believe that it's the embodiment of all evil.

Quite frankly, I think it's utter nonsense to suggest that by someone reading that fictional work (as any other fictional work, for that matter), he would be inspired to commit random acts of massive violence. No, the psyche responsible for committing such a depraved act--and it is depraved by any stretch of the imagination--goes much further than that. Yet these are the arguments that are generally given by many people who are, curiously enough, reasonably intelligent on other matters.

We cannot blame the random acts of violence depicted on TV for senseless violence. We cannot blame the daily hip-hop music being created, which encourages drugs, senseless violence, and a misogynistic-mindset. Yet we are somehow expected to believe that a book--and a fictional one at that--was responsible for one of the worse acts of domestic-inspired terrorism in the U.S. (with the possible exception of Waco, where Big Brother set children afire at a church)? I think it's asinine, to say the least, to suggest this; and I really do question the sanity of anyone who argues to the contrary.

Some may argue, "But, Dr. Pierce's book said this and that." Neglecting the fact that it is fiction, intermixed with a bit of reality and a gung-ho approach to its central character, it is still naught but a book. How many other books are out there that promote a greater degree of violence?

What about the millions of deaths under Marx's nonsensical diatribe?

Of course, many of these other books--and TV shows and hip-hop music--that encourage senseless violence are produced by Jews, so these are to be ignored? Nevertheless, that doesn't stop Jews from promoting the censorship of anything that they dislike or, at the least, demonizing such with their illogical train of thought.

"[Jewish religious] Laws which man-date genocide, legitimise the subordi-nate po-sition of women, discriminate against children of forbidden relationships and enshrine animal sacrifice as the ideal mode of worship, to mention but a few of the morally and theologically ob-jectionable mitzvot, simply cannot have been given by the wise and loving God whom Rabbi Boteach and I trust and worship."

Rabbi Mark L. Solomon, Jewish Chronicle (London), Letters, 1.11.1996, page 24

If we are to condemn books, perhaps we should start with the Jewish Oral Laws, the Talmud itself, which states in no uncertain terms. Genocide is actually advocated by The Talmud. The saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai reads: ("Tob shebe goyyim harog") "Even the best of the Gentiles should all be killed." (Talmud, Soferim 15, Rule 10.) This is not some baseless assertion on my part, either; for I have seen this exact sentence stated in the Jewish Encyclopedia. I'll photocopy it and e-mail it to you if you think I jest. And this Talmud is not mere fiction; it is a belief taught in a religious fervor to the adherents of this base religion.

Perhaps, this might explain why Dr. Goldstein went into a mosque near Israel and machine-gunned down dozens of people, while the Jewish soldiers stood idly by at first, only to shoot many of Muslims those running away. Or it might also explain why members of the JDL recently were arrested for plotting to bomb numerous mosques.

And it might also explain orthodox Muslim leader Alex Odeh's mysterious murder by a bombing in California (for which we're still awaiting the outcome of the investigation several years later). But that is beyond criticism--because Jews were presumably the perpetrators, merely following their "divine" logic as expressed in their Talmud? We can't blame the Talmud for this tragic act, but it undoubtedly played a role in the mentality that caused it.

We might then look at another million books that promote themes of violence. Should we question everyone who has committed an act of random violence, asking what they read that made them do it? What about "Soul on Ice," which promotes an anti-white theme? Where was the opposition to that, even when white women are routinely raped? What about the Nation of Islam's many books (not to be confused with orthodox Islam), which have promoted an anti-white theme? And what about the Nubian Islamic Hebrews (again, not orthodox Islam), which have anti-white diatribes that are so perverse that any reasonably intelligent white can hardly discuss them without turning beat red?

If people want to find out the mentality that inspired McVeigh, one need only look at his ramblings--not Dr. Pierce's fictional account to an oppressive system. When we scrutinize those who opposed Dr. Pierce, we find he was merely a moderate in response to the hate perpetrated against him and millions of other whites. Yes, it's perfectly all right for Jews and others to lambaste whites; yet when whites so much as write a fictional work about the converse, we are to believe that it's the embodiment of all evil.

In any case, here's an intersting article worth reviewing that asserts--and rightly so--that there was no "connection between McVeigh and The Turner Diaries":

Final Verdict: The false connection between Tim McVeigh and The Turner Diaries