Chris Christie angered over National Alliance presence on campus
On September 26, 1983 members and supporters of the National Alliance distributed copies of Who Rules America? on the campus of the University of Delaware. Who Rules America? documents the jewish control over America's entertainment and news media. A near hysterical reaction followed the incident. One of those reactionaries on campus at the time was the Delaware Undergraduate Student Congress (DUSC) president Chris Christie, who years later would become the Governor of the state of New Jersey and a Republican presidential candidate. Christie called the distribution "foolish" and condemned those responsible as "ignorant idiots." He went on to say the "DUSC feels that there is no place for anti-Semitism on this campus."[1]
The following is a commentary on the incident that appeared in the October 1983 issue of National Alliance Bulletin.
This is a source text. Spelling and smaller errors in the content can be corrected. The source is given in the "Source" part.
The reaction of University of Delaware officials and the "in crowd" on the student newspaper staff and in the student government, as indicated in the student newspaper, to an Alliance leaflet distribution was disappointing but not surprising. The student government president, Christ Christie, quoted in the student newspaper article reproduced here is picture elsewhere in the newspaper flashing a toothy TV smile suitable for a political candidate. He has the distinct appearance of a young man cut out to become president of the local Jaycees wherever he take up residency after graduation: a fellow who will always go along in order to get along.
What is more interesting is the reaction of the university officials, who acted as if the making available to the students and faculty at the University of Delaware of the names of the men who own and/or mange America’s news and entertainment media were a crime--or, at least, a very reprehensible act of "racial and religious discrimination." This is almost exactly the reaction which member James McDonald received from local officials in San Jose, CA, when he distributed information on the racial characteristics of rapists there (see "The Law" in NV No. 97). And it is the reaction which members can expect to encounter more frequently in the future, as the fear of heresy become stronger and stronger among demoralized, frightened, insecure White Americans. Increasingly they will seek the approval of jews, Blacks, and other organized minorities by turning on anyone who speaks out against the revealed religion of multiracial equality and brotherhood. This fear-conditioned behavior, immune to reason, will not change so long as the unorganized White masses perceive organized minorities as stronger than organized, racially conscious Whites.
The best way for Alliance members to combat this behavior is through boldness: by handing leaflets directly to students instead of surreptitiously placing them under windshield wipers at night, by deliberately engaging then in discussion on the issues, by challenging apologists for the jews to public debate, by speaking out in social-studies classes whenever the opportunity arises, by becoming as insistent and obnoxious as necessary to gain equal space in the student newspaper, by knowing exactly what their rights and the laws are. The other side cannot, of course, debate the issues on the facts, since the facts are against them. Therefore, the Chris Christie types, when faced with a bold, capable Alliance member, must either back down and look foolish and weak, or they must resort to jewish methods: lawyerly debating tricks and deception, emotional appeals, organized badgering and heckling, even physical intimidation--especially if there is a large non-White contingent on the campus.
There are few Alliance members who are usually able to acquit themselves well in such situations; they have quick wits, steady nerves, and strong lungs. Others can develop their abilities in this direction, to a certain extent, though training and practice. But there are many members who will not perform well in such situations. They can use their energies more effectively in one-on-one personal recruiting, in assisting someone else who is experienced and capable at public reaching--or in individual impersonal recruiting activities which involve a minimum of public contact, such as placing leaflets under windshield wipers.
It should be understood, however, that these last-mentioned activities cannot be expected to have a significant effect on public opinion, which is formed almost entirely by sub-rational processes; facts alone, outside a personal-social context, mean very little to the average citizen. Even a leaflet as simple and straightforward as Who Rules America? can hardly be assimilated by someone who is afraid that the information therein may be dangerous or ever controversial. A saturation of a university campus with leaflets will not by itself--without a good deal of accompanying, effective public activity--cause the average White student to change his attitudes. The "verbal and physical abuse" of jews at the University of Delaware mentioned in the student newspaper article was based entirely on an unreasoning, instinctive dislike of jews by White students there, not on any understanding of the jews’ destructive role in White society.
There is some value, of course, in simply disseminating facts and ides, whether the public is capable of making intelligent use of them or not: they are seeds, which will lodge themselves in even the most infertile minds and remain there until the opportunity to sprout and grow comes, perhaps many years later.Notes
- ↑ "Racist leaflets spark anger in Hullihen Hall", The Review (Student Center, University of Delaware), October 14, 1983