Dr. William Pierce, physicist and author of The Turner Diaries (1975–1978), argues his fictional work exposed societal trends like rising terrorism—citing Oklahoma City, WTC bombings, and the Unibomber—while critiquing forced integration post-civil rights as a catalyst for racial conflict. He admires Hitler’s Germany but rejects genocide claims, warning of inevitable civil wars within a decade if racial distinctions aren’t honored, framing his book as a cautionary tale rather than advocacy. Pierce’s views reflect a clash between historical grievances and modern governance, urging separation while dismissing peaceful coexistence as unrealistic. [Automatically generated summary]
From the high desert in the great American Southwest, I wish you all good evening, good morning, wherever you may be across all these many time zones from the Hawaiian and Sahitan Islands, where you can kind of form a certain middle picture, straight over flyover country to the Caribbean and the U.S. Virgin Islands, south into South America, north to the Pole, and worldwide on the internet.
This is Coast to Coast again.
I'm Mark Bell.
It will be an interesting morning, I guarantee.
Coming up in a moment, Dr. William Pierce, Ph.D., I guess a retired physicist and author of the Turner Diaries, thought by most to be a sort of a Bible for right-wing radicals.
And this is a very interesting man, and we're going to try and find out what we can about him in a moment.
All right, let us go to rural West Virginia, where Dr. Willi Pierce is located.
He is the author of the Turner Diaries, which is just now going back into print.
The opening segment on 16 Minutes London was about Dr. Pierce.
Oh, no, I would not have been out in the street demonstrating on behalf of the enemy.
What I could not understand at that time was what the proper position of the government should have been.
Should it have been to try to fight this war to win, in which case this demonstration on behalf of the enemy's partisans in the streets simply would not have been tolerated?
Or should it have been simply to say, hey, we made a big mistake.
We're not going to sacrifice our health and our blood and on balance.
On balance, Doctor, which one do you believe, even with today's perspective, would be true, that they shouldn't or that we should have gone all the way?
I was also concerned by another movement which was going on simultaneously, and that was the so-called civil rights movement, in which we had all sorts of demonstrations going on, Which again called into question our values, our standards, our lifestyle.
And I really couldn't understand the significance of these things.
I had to stop and back off, try to figure out: now, what does this mean?
Here we've got people claiming that miscegenation is okay.
We've got people claiming that it's not proper for a group of people to have self-determination and to have a homogeneous society, that we have to mix it all up.
We have to mix these different races, mix these different cultures together.
What's going to be the implication of this for the future?
This is really quite a drastic change from the way we have done things in the past.
And one of the consequences of looking at what was going on in this Vietnam War movement and also in the civil rights movement was I had to do a lot more reading of history, a lot more thinking about the significance of these things than I had ever had a chance to do before as a student or as a professor.
And I began coming to some conclusions and I began writing.
My writing was editorials, essays, historical feature articles, analysis of current events.
It was all nonfiction.
It was all pretty serious stuff.
And a friend of mine said to me, this was the late Rebelo Oliver, who at that time was a professor of classics at the University of Illinois in Urbana.
He said to me, hey, you know, people just don't read this kind of stuff that you're writing these days.
People are interested in serious writing.
If you want people to listen to what you have to say, if you want them to think about the ideas that you believe are important, you've got to put it in the form of recreational reading for them.
You want to try writing a novel.
He gave me a few examples of novels which had been written in the past, which had ideas embedded in them.
One of them was Jacqueline's A Terring Heel.
Another was Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin.
I thought about this, and the more I thought about it, the more it seemed like it might be a good idea.
So eventually I thought I would try it, and I did.
I made up an adventure story.
Actually, I made it up as I went along because I was publishing a newspaper at the time, and I put one chapter in each month's issue.
It was a monthly newspaper.
I put one chapter in each issue of the newspaper.
When I started, I didn't know how it was going to finish.
But over a three-year period, I wrote the Turner Diaries.
And I found that my friend, Professor Oliver, had been correct.
I got a much larger response from the public to this fictional series than I had gotten to the serious nonfiction that I had written previously.
Well, then, you've jumped a question on me because I wanted to understand whether, in fact, from you, the Turner Diaries really was intended to be a real message carried in a somewhat entertaining form, and you have just confirmed that that is true.
Well, what I saw was a growing heterogeneity in American society, a breakdown of the homogeneity that we had had up to that time,
an increasing cosmopolitanism, and accompanying that, a growing alienation, a breakdown of the bonds of community, a loss of the feeling of identity that we had felt as a people up until that time.
Code words, a few code words, but drawing from the 60-minutes conclusion, which you seem to sort of grudgingly, you know, confirm, that to get America back or to solve this growing problem as you perceived it, the blacks, Jews, even Hispanics basically must go?
Well, any society which is to remain healthy, has to maintain a reasonable degree of homogeneity.
You have to have a consensus among the people.
You have to have a shared sense of history, a sense of family, if the society is to hold together, remain healthy, and continue to move forward in a progressive sort of way.
Well, if you don't have homogeneity, that is, if you don't have a shared history, a shared blood, shared values, then you cannot really feel that you have a sense of responsibility to the community around you.
You tend to withdraw into yourself.
The society tends to become atomized.
You tend to have excessive individualism, excessive egoism, and at the same time, an alienation so that the society as a whole has nothing to hold it together.
Well, you know, the values that we have are a product of our history and our genes.
And people who made up this country or who made up, let's say, white society in this country had at least a reasonably common background.
We all came from Europe.
We all went through similar experiences in similar environments over tens of thousands of years before we came to this country, conquered it, settled it, and began building a new civilization here.
I think that it's reasonable to say that we are, that we have always fought for the things that we believe were worth fighting for in the past.
It was seldom that we believed that it was proper just to roll over and play dead when we were attacked by people who wanted to take away from us our land or make us change our way of life or deprive us of our freedom.
Well, I guess that different tribes perceived us in different ways, but I think that certainly many of them must have looked upon us as invaders, as a threat to their way of life.
You know, that the course of world history has been one of that conflict between peoples, between races, with the ones who were strong being able to take territory away from the ones who were weak or were not willing to fight and imposing their genes and their values on the land.
Probably not one of your favorite people, Reverend Louis Farrakhan.
Well, very interesting, actually, intellectually interesting individual to me.
I would also like to interview him, but you're, I'm sure, familiar with the way he feels about the black race in America and the white race in America.
In many ways, you are strange intellectual bedfellows, are you not?
I've seen him in some good interviews in which he has suggested that, in fact, in America, the blacks, the whites, should physically, actually go their separate ways.
In his case, he would like, he has suggested some strip of appropriate land to where America's blacks might go.
Yes, you know, it's a coincidence that you mentioned him because prior to the 60 Minutes interview, I asked a friend in New York to send me a video of any Wallace interview so that I could familiarize myself with his style.
And my friend sent me a video of an interview that Wallace had done a couple of months earlier with Louis Farrakhan.
And so I viewed that interview the day before my own interview with Wallace.
I thought Farrakhan did an admirable job of presenting himself in a way that would strengthen his position with his people.
I've always admired certain things about Farrakhan.
I'm sure that we would disagree on many things too, but he is one of the black leaders that I have had the greatest respect for.
But we have gone far beyond that with the things that are happening today.
When we were living in Europe, we always had quite a sufficient degree of genetic variability to take advantage of a fairly wide range of circumstances.
There is an optimum degree of genetic variability for a population.
Well, I don't know if folks up there in Montana, either individually or as a group.
From what I have seen, they have some pretty wacky religious ideas and some even wackier economic ideas.
They believe that a certain amendment to the Constitution wasn't properly ratified and therefore the Federal Reserve System is illegal and therefore they are entitled to prent their own money or something to that effect.
Is there any way that you can see a justification for their, in effect, constructing their own monetary system, issuing liens upon which they wrote checks which were no good and blah, blah, blah?
Is there any way you can see that truly justified by their complaint regarding the Fed?
Yeah, you know, as long as They do this among themselves, of course, more power to them.
I think that the unfortunate thing is that they were able to get some other folks involved in this thing by sending their checks out to buy things that they wanted, like new tractors and so on.
And they really shouldn't have done that.
They should have thought this thing through a little more carefully because that brought the federal government into it.
But I do sympathize with their basic position of just wanting to be left alone, of feeling that the government was pushing them too hard even before they did these things which the government decided it had to step in and deal with forcefully.
Well, if we are to maintain any form or level of civilization, then there has to be some rule of law.
I mean, their mortgages could not be paid, so they simply stopped paying them, and so forth and so on, and the checks and the death threats issued with regard to local officials.
Now, should the FBI or should a government or a law enforcement group be doing essentially what's being done right now, and that is trying to bring them to justice?
You know, if I go out and take money away from my neighbor who is not part of my thing, so to speak, then I expect the government to step in and say, hey, you can't do that.
That's stealing.
You have to give it back.
One of the things that I've always been careful to do throughout my adult life is never borrow money, never be indebted to a bank, never be in the position of having to make payments that I might not be able to make someday.
These folks got themselves into that position where they began seeing the banks as their enemies, as taking advantage of them because they were overextended in the loans that they had taken out.
And I understand that the government has to protect the interests of the folks outside the Freeman community as well as the interests of the folks inside the Freeman community.
Well, you know, as I said before, I don't know any of these folks up there personally.
I don't know much about their organization except what I've seen on the news, and I hesitate a little bit to give advice because I don't really know what all of their considerations are.
If I were into this thing as deeply as they are with, you know, facing the prospect of many years in prison, I might be inclined just to stick in there and fight it out.
I'd say, what have I got to lose?
If I could go back, however, and start over again, I'd say, hey, I did this the wrong way.
I think that it's possible to withdraw, to get the government out of my hair to a certain extent, to keep my kids out of the public schools without getting entangled with the FBI the way these freemen have.
And if the government could offer them some sort of a deal where they could make restitution for some of the economic irregularities that they are alleged to have been engaged in, but didn't have to go to jail, I think maybe I would look at a deal like that long and hard, say, hey, I didn't really start this off the way I should have.
If I can get out of this without having to spend the rest of my life in jail, maybe I'll try to do that and then go my own way a little bit more prudently in the future.
Mr. Stewart has always been a bit of a renegade in the publishing industry in New York that his public service would touch.
He's a ballsy sort of a guy.
When I first made contact with him, he had phoned one of my people who is in charge of book promotion and said he was interested in publishing the Turner Diaries.
And so I called Stuart.
And he was in a meeting at the time.
But when I gave my name, his secretary put me through.
And he said, you know, we're talking about your book right now.
And he told the other folks in the room to say hello.
And I heard this chorus of hi in the background.
And he said, you know, you give me a call back at my home tomorrow morning and we can talk about it.
But right now, I've got to, you know, decide this matter with my own people.
So I called him back the next morning.
And he said, you know, every one of my people yesterday was dead sent against our publishing your book.
And that convinced me that we just had to do it.
You know, he's that sort of a guy.
He believes in going his own way and he thrives on controversy.
And he saw the Turner Diaries as a very controversial book.
And I guess he thought that that would go a long way towards selling it.
I guess he also thought that any book that is as controversial as the Turner Diaries must have something interesting to Say, otherwise, it would never have all the controversy around it that it does.
Well, you know, I hope that we don't have to go through all of the bloodshed and the unpleasantness that I imagined back in the 1970s when I was writing the book.
I would hope that we can wake up and try to choose a more prudent course before we get involved in this all-out warfare that I imagined.
But if I look at history, I don't see a lot of grounds for hope.
It seems like we have very seldom wakened up to the, you know, and chosen a more prudent course.
It looks like we've generally done things the hard way.
We've generally done things the bloody way.
And I don't have a lot of hope that we won't end up going through a great deal of unpleasantness in the future.
Now again, asking you, would you, in other words, your personal preference, would you see this as inevitable or even something that you would want to happen?
I mean, the specific plot in the book, which involved nuclear weapons and a lot of other pleasant and violent things, that's not something that I look forward to with eagerness.
That's not the sort of thing that I relish.
Those are not the ideas in the book.
That is simply the plot of the book.
And I tried to make the plot interesting.
I tried to make a gripping adventure story so that people wouldn't put the book down after the first few pages and say, ho, hum, I've got better things to do.
I wanted them to read the whole thing through.
So I tried to make a believable adventure scenario.
I tried to put myself in the skin of the protagonist, Earl Turner, as I was writing, and to make it exciting.
This was one chapter a month, and so something exciting had to happen in every chapter to keep up the interest.
All right, are you pleased by or not pleased by the fact that apparently Timothy McVeigh, the man accused of blowing up the Murray Building in Oklahoma City, apparently embraced your book and your story almost as specific instructions.
No, no, you're sort of implying that my book was the inspiration for the bombing in Oklahoma City, and I don't believe that's true at all.
I think the inspiration for the bombing in Oklahoma City was the massacre in Waco, Texas that took place two years earlier.
And you might ask Bill Clinton and Janet Reno whether they're pleased that what they did in Waco in killing all those women and children has inspired Timothy McVeigh and others to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City.
Indeed, his motivation for doing what he did may have been revenge for Waco.
I think that's clearly probable.
Again, his method was nearly identical to that method described in your book, where I believe a militia member, white militia member, drove a truck full of fertilizer bombs or big bomb under an FBI building in Washington, D.C. and blew it to smithereens.
Even according to Mike Wallace, down to the mix of the fertilizer, that close.
Yeah, you know, the truck bomb is the weapon of choice for the terrorist who wants to blow up a building.
It was a truck bomb that was used to blow up the Marine barracks in Lebanon.
When was that, 1984?
It was a truck bomb which was used to blow up the World Trade Center.
And Timothy McVeigh, who I understand was a student of military science, must have been aware of this, that it's the weapon which has been used traditionally, and it's the weapon which makes sense if you want to do large-scale damage to a strong structure like a concrete building.
Well, you know, it took a while for me to understand what had happened there, as I think was the case with most other people.
You know, I watched a lot of that early newsreel coverage of the bombing, and one of the things that struck me was that this was within, say, the first hour after the bombing, they were reporting that other unexploded bombs had been found in the building.
I was trying to figure out, well, just what has gone on here?
What caused this explosion?
Other unexploded bombs in the building?
That must have meant it was an inside job.
And then later on, there was never an explanation of this.
They just stopped talking about these other bombs that they had found.
And this, of course, has fueled all sorts of wild speculation.
A lot of people are speculating that the government blew up the building themselves to serve as a pretext for cracking down on the militias and for outlawing firearms.
I don't believe that.
I don't believe the government blew up the building themselves.
But I always wondered what happened to these unexploded bombs that they were talking about early in the newsreel coverage of this thing.
And I think there was an explanation that they were there for training or they were there.
I can't exactly recall, but it did sort of drop off.
Then there were people who said that, well, there were two explosions, not one, and they attempted to produce seismic records that indicated that was so, and, you know, and on and on.
And then, of course, John Doe number two, we could go on and on about the sort of urban myths, maybe some of them not myths that have grown out of this.
Well, as I said, I was following all this, and it was a while before the conclusion was reached by the authorities based on their investigation that, in fact, this had been a truck bomb using ammonium nitrate fertilizer.
But at some point, you must have begun to see the fact that there was a connection or that people would perceive there was a connection, one of the two.
You know, it was quite a while later before there were reports that, what's his name, McVeigh, had read the Turner Diaries and he had talked about it to some of his Army buddies.
You know, I've watched the news reports of the World Trade Center bombing, too.
And it came out, I think, a little bit more clearly and a little earlier in that bombing that it was a truck bomb that was used in the World Trade Center bombing.
Now, people don't ask me, say, well, don't you feel responsible for the World Trade Center bombing?
I mean, after all, it was a bomb similar to the one you described in the Turner Diaries.
And I say, nonsense.
It's clear, again, that the motivation for that bombing was not something that these folks who blew up the World Trade Center had read in a book.
It was what our government has actually been doing over in the Middle East.
And these folks wanted to send a message to the government and say, hey, we don't appreciate the fact that you're supporting Israel and Israel is killing our people.
And I think, again, in the case of the Oklahoma City bombing, it was somebody who wanted to send a message to the government about something that the government had actually done, namely the massacre in Waco.
It wasn't an inspiration that came from reading a book, my book, or anybody else's book.
Well, I don't know how things will go in detail, but in general, yes, I do believe that we will see more terrorism.
I believe that the scale will increase.
I believe that the number of incidents will increase.
I believe, in other words, that these incidents that we have seen happening almost simultaneously on a historical scale, the World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Unabomber and his mail bombs, I think that this is just the beginning.
Well, you know, I don't agree with a lot of the ideas that Mr. Kaczynski expressed in his manifesto.
He came from a left-wing background.
I don't share a lot of those sentiments that are common in the left-wing, but I do sympathize with some of the things that apparently were bugging him when he wrote that manifesto.
Yeah, he has complained about what this over-industrialized life style has done to us as a people, what it's done to the world.
And when I was studying history, I was struck by the changes that the Industrial Revolution made in the life and in the thinking of people.
It took people off the farms, out of the countryside, away from the villages, and urbanized them.
It packed them together into factory towns, into mill towns.
And I think that by and large this was an unhealthy change.
Now, I'm not a Luddite like Mr. Kaczynski.
I'm a bit of a technology freak myself.
I've always been interested in computers and other devices.
But I do think that the way in which technology has been applied to our lives has not been well thought out, that it has had some very unfortunate consequences.
And I could see Mr. Kaczynski agonizing over these things in his manifesto, and I sympathize with a lot of what he said.
You mean of sending out mail bombs to various people?
I really don't agree with that at all.
Often I wondered why he chose some particular guy as a target when I couldn't really see that this guy was responsible for the things that Mr. Kaczynski was complaining about.
And I got the impression that maybe Mr. Kaczynski was acting more out of frustration, out of the feeling that he just had to do something and hadn't really worked out an effective plan of action to change the things that he found disagreeable.
Well, the folks who were fighting against the government in the Turner Diaries were concerned about a specific threat, and that was this computerized identity card system that the government was developing.
And the computers were in the basement of the FBI headquarters, and so that's why they put the bomb there.
I think that the Unabomber was not trying to stop any particular program or something.
I think maybe he was just trying to say, hey, I'm here.
I've got some real concerns.
Listen to me.
But I don't think that he hoped to stop some of these industrial programs he saw as life-threatening by killing some forestry official or some professor at a university or what have you.
All right, Timothy McVeigh, for a second aside, how do you feel about the fact that your book has been embraced as sort of a Bible of the extreme right?
well I don't know that I have I don't know that I'm upset by this claim or that I'm pleased by this claim I'm not sure that the claim is true you know what you call the extreme right is a pretty heterogeneous bunch of people there are a lot of different types of folks there are these identity Christians I understand that that's what these people up in Montana are the Montana
freemen there are people with other ideas and I doubt that all of the people who are opposed to the government for one reason or another could agree that the Turner Diaries is a bible for them I think maybe a lot of people who are opposed to the government find certain ideas ideas of interest in the Turner Diaries but I don't think that as a whole they would they
unidentified
would accept it as a bible are you a religious man?
I am a religious person I'm I guess what you would call a nature worshipper do you believe in a creator?
yes I do but I see the creator not as some big daddy up in the sky sitting on the clouds and keeping his finger on everything going on below I see God as eminent in nature an indwelling God do you believe man has a soul?
depends upon how you define soul if I really want to something I'll do it for you something that would live beyond the physical or exist beyond the physical no no I don't believe in ghosts I don't believe that I or anybody else continues to to be conscious and to be able to to think about things and observe what's going on after his body has been destroyed so no heaven no hell
think that that which you describe you said you believe in God then you said well God is kind of nature or maybe nature do you think that nature or God looks upon white people in a more kindly way than it does those of other skin colors and religions you're making God anthropomorphic I am here and I don't I don't look at it that way at all I am a
person of European ancestry I value more the things that my people have done I value things like Western civilization and the values that are at the root of Western civilization i value the history of my own people i value the the great men of my own people more than i do uh.
the values and the people and the history associated with other racial groups, but I can't speak for God.
Wouldn't it be these very men that you describe, that you admire, values you admire, who would bring about a system of identification that you would see blown up?
In your book, you said the FBI building was blown up because of this new system of identification.
If there were to be such a thing, and many believe that we are headed in that direction, would it not be instituted by the very people you suggest you admire?
My guest is Dr. William Pierce, author of the very controversial Turner Diaries.
Coming back now in print, once again.
Back now to Dr. William Pierce.
He was a physics professor, very interesting, a physics professor, and then I guess retired and became an author.
And many people say his book forwards the idea of hatred, in fact, culminating in a race war.
It is a fictional work about a race war with a message.
And we discussed that, and I think it's an important aspect that you really did want the message out, Doctor.
Now, I think arguably, whether it's racial hatreds or it's hatred of the government, it is certainly these days increasing, and it's headed toward something.
Now, one side preaches we must end this stupid, wasteful hatred between people because of races and differences that we have.
The other side, and I think it fairly is your side, sees that as increasing or even wants it to increase.
One way or the other, we want to have some resolution.
We'll have some final resolution in our society, a race war or some way to cure this hate.
I've actually got a lot of different facets of this message, only part of which appeared in the Turner Diaries.
I've got a website on the Internet where people can look at a lot of the other facets of the message.
That website address is www.natvan.
That's N-A-P-V-A-N.com.
www.natvan.com.
Now, you talked about hatred.
Yes.
And it's true.
We are seeing a lot more hatred, a lot more hostility, a lot more tension building up in this society than anybody is comfortable with.
And people are saying, oh, we've got to stop this hatred.
It's a bad thing.
And I agree.
But I think that the only way that we are going to stop it is to look at the causes of it and try to undo those causes.
I think that when we have this conflict developing between the races as a consequence of these programs to force the races together, to force them to mix, we've got to say, hey, maybe this program, this idea that everybody will be happy if we force them all together, maybe we were wrong on that.
Maybe what we need to do is the sort of thing that Mr. Farrakhan has been advocating.
We need to let people do their own thing.
We need to allow them to separate if they want to, and then perhaps we can decrease some of this hostility.
Yes, you know, there was a civil war going on in the book, and the revolutionaries had captured Southern California, but they had not pacified Southern California.
There was all sorts of turmoil going on.
was sniping and assassination and sabotage and so they Yeah, sort of like Southern California today.
And so there was a pacification program which involved hanging an awful lot of people in order to calm things down.
A very unpleasant episode in the book, but one which seems to have stuck in the minds of most of the readers.
Well, there were people who were hung for having betrayed their race.
I remember a specific example of a realtor who was hanged because he had participated in a program which provided lower-cost housing to racially mixed couples, for example.
And the revolutionaries regarded him as an advocate of this program, which they regarded as racially destructive.
And so he was hanged not only as part of the pacification program, but as an example to the rest of the population.
We had a, the white society was clearly dominant in our society, say, prior to the Second World War.
We had separate and unequal societies in this country.
And I don't think that was a healthy situation either.
We got ourselves into a pretty unfortunate mess in this country by starting off with a slave-based economy in the South back in colonial days.
When that slavery came to an end during the Civil War, we dumped 3 million freed slaves into the general population and laid the basis for the problem that we have today.
They saw an action to this problem, thought they could head off a lot of unpleasant consequences by sending the slaves and their descendants back to Africa.
And President Lincoln looked with favor on this program and was helping to formulate a plan for repatriation at the time he was assassinated.
Well, then, this is asking you to speculate, of course, but just out of curiosity, how would you see a separate white nation or how would you see it delineated from a separate black nation?
Well, it's just something that I imagined you would have thought of since you feel that that is the only possible direction or ultimate direction, whether we have a race war or we don't have a race war that will cure this problem.
So then you must have occasionally imagined the differences between these governments, structures, lands, peoples.
Well, no, I mean, I don't try to design the type of government that some other group of people will have.
I don't believe that we should impose our ideas about government on other people.
I've never agreed with this idea that it was America's mission to make sure that every country in the world had a democratic form of government.
I don't believe that we should have taken upon ourselves the burden of changing the religion of the people in Africa or India or anywhere else.
I think that we should concern ourselves with our own problems, our own people, our own development, and let other people have the form of government, the religion, the institutions that they find congenial to them.
You know, after the First World War, Germany was in pretty bad shape economically, socially.
They had a government known as the Weimar Republic, which tolerated homosexual behavior, which tolerated all sorts of things that a certain liberal set found very congenial, but which was very distressing to the more tradition-minded component among the German people.
And Hitler developed policies and programs which restored Germany to health, not only to economic health, not only to political strength, but to moral and spiritual health.
He managed to get all of the German people, or virtually all of them, behind him with this policy, these policies that he formulated.
He Did a job which was nothing short of miraculous.
And I'm not the only one who has looked upon these policies with a degree of admiration.
Winston Churchill, back prior to the Second World War, expressed his admiration for what Hitler had done in Germany, for Hitler's policies and programs.
Well, you know, one of the things that Hitler and his followers were determined to do in Germany was to free German society from the very disproportionately strong Jewish influence that had built up during the period of the Weimar Republic.
The German newspapers were disproportionately in Jewish hands.
The legal profession was very heavily in Jewish hands.
the Jews had developed a disproportionately strong influence in the universities, in the arts, and the Germans...
Well, the Jews have, by working together, by having a strong sense of racial solidarity, by cooperating with each other, had a great advantage toward doing that sort of thing in every country that they have moved into.
And Adolf Hitler, of course, went far beyond that when he then, in lands he successively conquered, collected generally the Jews and made a good shot at genocide and killed millions.
Probably, as it has developed, in order, if you question it, you've got to look at the details.
You've got to look at the facts.
You can't say, well, there was a Holocaust or there wasn't a Holocaust.
You've got to say, what specifically do you allege happened?
What are all the details which together make up the Holocaust?
And if you think that maybe that wasn't entirely true, you've got to look at it detail by detail.
examine the specific instances that are alleged to have happened and see whether or not, in fact, they were true.
I think it was partially true, yes.
That just as the government in this country rounded up citizens of Japanese descent and put them in internment camps or concentration camps, the same thing happened in Germany and in the German-occupied territories during the Second World War.
I'm becoming a little hoarse, and probably you'll want to allow some of the callers a chance to call in, and I think I'll let you talk to those callers.
All right, and I appreciated the chance to be on your program.