by Dr. William L. Pierce
In various Free Speech articles I’ve
spoken about our problems with Blacks, with Asian immigrants, with mestizos,
and of course, with Jews - especially about our problems with Jews, in
deference to their demand always to be at the head of the line. Now, I’d like
to talk about our problems with ourselves, with European-Americans: about
what’s wrong with White people.
Actually, this is such a huge
subject that I can deal with only a tiny part of it. In the organization which
I head, the National Alliance, I’ve been talking with members about two aspects
of the White problem: White cowardice and White selfishness. Here are some of
our thoughts.
If most White people weren’t
such terrible cowards, we wouldn’t have problems with Blacks, mestizos, Jews,
or anyone else today. We would have solved all of those problems long ago.
There are plenty of people who agree with us about the type of society we want,
the type of future we want for our people. There are many people who are
disgusted with the rotten politicians and the rotten political system we have
in Washington, people who are angry about what non-White minorities have done
to our schools and our cities, people who are sick and tired of seeing
television and the other mass media promote everything which is sick, perverse,
and destructive. Many people don’t feel guilty when the media tell them to feel
guilty. There are plenty of people who want a clean, decent, White society for
their children to grow up in. But these people are afraid to say or do
anything. Many are terrified even to have other people know what they are thinking.
Why is that? What are White people afraid of?
I understand the difference
between prudence or reasonable caution on the one hand and cowardice or
unreasoning fear on the other hand. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice is. Imagine,
for example, that you work in an office under a Jewish supervisor. You are
close to retirement, and you can’t afford to lose your employment. Your Jewish
boss is a big supporter of Clinton, affirmative action, “diversity,”
homosexuality, feminism, racial mixing, and every other thing which is bad for
our people. And the boss always is pushing these things, is making favorable
comments about these things, around you and your fellow employees. He’s always
saying that Bill Clinton is a wonderful man and that all of the people who are
attacking him are just a bunch of bigots who hate him because he has been so
good to Israel. Every time your Jewish boss says something like that you bite
your tongue and keep your mouth shut, even though you want to tell him what you
really think. You consider the consequences to yourself and to your family if
you speak out, and you decide that it’s not worth it. So you grit your teeth
and remain silent. What does that make you? Well, certainly you are no hero,
but under the circumstances I don’t think it would be fair to call you a coward
either. You are just a prudent person.
The times we are living in
tend to make cowards of us all. We are pressed to make moral compromises every
day, and it becomes a habit. Certainly, if a man today tried to act honorably
in all things according to the standards for honorable behavior 100 years ago
he would very likely find himself in prison in short order. For all practical
purposes we are living like a conquered people under an enemy occupation
government. We adjust our behavior in order to get by without a lot of trouble.
We do not act heroically, because heroism is out of fashion. We try to do what
is prudent rather than what is heroic.
But some people go too
far in this direction, and they must be judged as cowards even by
today’s lax standards. There are people, for example, who whisper to me that
they agree with everything I say, and ask me for information about the National
Alliance. I will offer to mail the information to them, and they will turn pale
and tell me that I must not do that: the postman or a neighbor might see their
mail. “So what?” I respond, and they will just look frightened and scurry away.
There are other people who are afraid to talk with me on the telephone, because
they are certain that the FBI is recording all of my calls.
I won’t bore you with all of
the details, but over a period of years I have been made aware repeatedly of
the fact that there are many people in America - White adults of reasonably
sound mind - who are so afraid of the government in Washington that their fear
controls them; it dominates them. They are afraid that the government will find
out if they send a letter to anyone who is critical of the government, such as
me. They are terrified of being on the mailing list of a Politically Incorrect
organization. They are terrified of having their telephone records show that
they have made calls to or received calls from anyone who is on the
government’s blacklist. And these are people who themselves hate the
government! But they are terribly afraid that the government will find out what
they feel, what they think. There are, I am sorry to say, millions of such
people in this country.
When I have spoken with some
of these people in an effort to find out just what it is they are afraid of,
what they believe will happen to them if the government discovers that they are
thinking Politically Incorrect thoughts, I usually get a defensive reaction.
Most of them don’t have any precise idea of how the government might punish
them. Some of them will express vague fears about economic retaliation - an IRS
audit or the loss of a pension - and others worry that all constitutional
rights will be suspended under some Presidential declaration of a national
emergency, and all dissidents will be rounded up and put in concentration
camps. In most cases their fear is irrational.
I think it likely that there
always have been people who were dominated by irrational fears, people who were
afraid of their own shadow, but I am sure that there are many more of them
today than there were in the past. I believe that the type of life-style we
have today is partly responsible for this prevalence of unreasonable fear. Men
who have been sheltered from danger all their lives, who have grown up in a
welfare state, and who have never faced physical danger or seen another man die
a violent death may not be able to cope with the idea of risk or be able to
overcome even the minor fears which beset all of us every day of our lives.
Another part of the reason for
this fear is that the controlled mass media encourage it and exacerbate it. The
media bosses all will tell you that they support the First Amendment, that they
believe in free speech and the rest of the Bill of Rights, but they don’t. They
want the same sort of laws in this country they have lobbied for and gotten in
other countries, such as Canada, France, Switzerland, Germany, and a dozen
others, where one can be imprisoned for Politically Incorrect speech. It’s what
they like to call “hate speech,” and they’ve been lobbying quietly for laws
against it for years.
Part of their campaign has
involved persuading the more impressionable elements of the public that it’s
already illegal to say anything which is “racist” or “anti-Semitic.” I’m sure
that all of you have seen newspaper stories to the effect that someone was
arrested for distributing “racist” leaflets, or that the police found
“anti-Semitic” literature in the home of someone who was charged with a “hate
crime.” The way these things are reported they create the impression in the
public’s mind that distributing Politically Incorrect leaflets or having
Politically Incorrect books in one’s home is illegal in itself. And they report
things that way deliberately. They deliberately deceive us. They
want people who read these news reports to believe that having the wrong type
of reading material on one’s bookshelf - or the wrong type of ideas in one’s
head - can get one into trouble. They want the people who think Politically
Incorrect thoughts to be fearful.
They are masters of
psychological manipulation. I reported to you about the nine schoolchildren in
Florida who were thrown into jail for producing a Politically Incorrect
pamphlet which lampooned a Black principal at their school. The children had
done nothing illegal. The purpose of putting them in jail and making a big
thing of it in the newspapers was to intimidate the children - and everyone
who read about what happened to them. And unfortunately, this sort of
intimidation all too often works. It works because many of our people already
are too timid, too cowed, to fight back.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn is one
of my favorite authors. In one of his books, the first volume of Gulag
Archipelago, he wrote about how the communists in Russia, who consisted of
only the Jews and a tiny minority of Russian criminals, amoral opportunists,
and welfare rabble - the sort of people who support Bill Clinton in America
today - were able to maintain their grip on all of Russia by keeping the
Russian majority, which hated them, too frightened to resist.
Solzhenitsyn writes of the
period in 1934 and 1935, when the Jewish commissar Genrikh Yagoda headed the
Soviet secret police, and Yagoda’s black vans went out every night in St.
Petersburg, known then as Leningrad, to round up “class enemies”: former
members of the aristocracy, former civil servants, former businessmen, former
teachers, professors, and professional people, any Russian - any real Russian
- who had graduated from a university. A quarter of the population of the city
was arrested and liquidated by Yagoda during this two-year period.
Solzhenitsyn laments that the
citizens of St. Petersburg cowered behind their doors when the black vans
pulled up at their apartment houses night after night to arrest their
neighbors. If only the decent Russians had fought back, Solzhenitsyn says, if
only they had ambushed some of these secret police thugs in the hallways of
their apartments with knives, pickaxes, or hammers, if only they had spiked the
tires of the police vans while the thugs were in the apartments dragging out
their victims, they could easily have overwhelmed Yagoda’s forces and forced an
end to the mass arrests. But they didn’t fight back, and the arrests and
liquidations continued. And so, Solzhenitsyn concludes, because of their
cowardice and their selfishness the Russians deserved what the communists did
to them. Do we deserve better?
The other problem White people
have that I want to talk about is selfishness or individualism. Every week I
receive letters accusing me of being a “collectivist.” The people who write the
letters are indignant because I suggest that all of us have a responsibility
for the future of our race, that we should put the welfare and security of our
people, of our race, ahead of personal considerations. What happens to our
people is more important than what happens to any individual.
This kind of talk irritates
the individualist, and he tells me that although he agrees with my criticisms
of the government, he doesn’t agree with my racism. Racism is a form of
collectivism, which in his mind is akin to communism, and so I am just as bad
as the communists. His only concern is for himself, and he believes that
everyone else should feel the same. He resents being told that he has a
responsibility to his race. He tells me that he knows some Blacks, Jews, or
Asians who make better neighbors or better employees than some White people,
and he is just as resentful of White welfare bums as he is of Black welfare
bums, and so he rejects my call for him to think of himself as a White person
or as a European-American. He makes all of his decisions on the basis of what
is good for him, and he thinks everyone else should do the same.
The individualist responds to
my warnings about the overwhelming Jewish influence in the mass media by
saying, “So what? The Jews are smart businessmen. That’s why they control the
media. If you don’t like it, buy yourself a television station and compete with
them.”
If I complain about the media
promoting interracial sex or homosexuality, the individualist doesn’t
understand what I’m concerned about. To him the choice of a sexual orientation
or the race of one’s sexual partner is strictly an individual matter, and no
one has any right to say that one type of relationship is inherently better
than another. If a White person wants to marry a Black and have mixed-race
children, that’s okay with the individualist. The more extreme individualists
also believe that the government has no business making laws against abused
drugs. He believes that it should be up to the individual to decide whether or
not he wants to use drugs, and he doesn’t care about the consequences to
society of the widespread use of harmful drugs. That’s not his responsibility.
You know, if we were living in
a White world I wouldn’t worry much about individualists. I still would deplore
their selfishness and their refusal to accept responsibility for anyone or
anything but themselves, but I wouldn’t consider them a major threat. As it is,
with our people under assault by organized minorities on every front, I
consider individualists to be worse than communists. Their way of thinking is
really a mental illness: an illness which can infect others. And like cowardice
it has been deliberately encouraged by the controlled media, because it weakens
our people, it destroys our solidarity and makes it easier for the media bosses
and their allies to keep us under control.
I doubt that there’s anything
we can do to make a man out of a coward. However, at least some individualists
may overcome their illness and change their ways as our social and political
situation continues to deteriorate.
Perhaps some of them will read
Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, and they will understand
that the reason the Russian people fell victim to the tiny communist minority
was not just their cowardice but also their unwillingness to take
responsibility for the welfare of their people and to stand together as decent
Russians against the Jews and the rabble. And perhaps they will see the parallel
between what happened in Russia in the 1930s and what is happening in America
now.
Perhaps some of them will come
to understand that the reason our race is in peril now is because we are the
only race which has tolerated individualism. The Jews certainly have not
achieved their position of dominance by being individualists: they have
achieved it by supporting each other against the rest of the world, by putting
the welfare of their race first. Any Jew who collaborated openly with non-Jews
against Jewish interests - the way White politicians habitually collaborate
with minorities against White interests - would be ostracized and condemned by
his fellow Jews. He would become an outcast.
Blacks have achieved their own
measure of political power because they think and act as a group: they think of
themselves as Blacks first, and they use their organized strength to demand
special treatment and special favors from the government.
Perhaps some of our
individualists will realize that their own lives can have no lasting value or
meaning, no matter how rich or famous they become, unless they are part of
something larger and more enduring than themselves. Perhaps some of them will
realize that the limb they’ve been sawing off by supporting Jewish policies at the
expense of their own people is the limb they’re sitting on. Perhaps when they
contemplate the extinction of their own race they will realize that, despite
all of its faults, it’s all they have. Perhaps we can help them realize that.
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment