Her killer was made into a hero

Love Your Race - video

America and the World Food Crisis

food_crisis_globeby Dr. William L. Pierce

“As the world food crisis develops, Americans must shoulder their responsibility, willingly or not, to share their abundance with less fortunate people.”

“We must convince Americans to eat less meat so that more grain can be sent to starving peoples around the world.”

“It is manifestly unfair that Americans, who comprise only five per cent of the world’s population, should consume 15 per cent of the world’s food production. This inequality must be corrected.”

THESE STATEMENTS by various “experts” are only a few of hundreds of similar import which have been quoted in recent weeks by the controlled mass media in the current campaign to reorient Americans’ thinking toward their “responsibilities as members of the world community.” (ILLUSTRATION: Left-wing cartoonists have been aiding in the media propaganda campaign to convince Americans that they must eat less so that American food can be used to feed rapidly multiplying Africans and Asians. This Conrad cartoon was drawn for the Los Angeles Times.)

Worldwide Equality

What economic and foreign policy planners in Washington see as America ‘s primary “responsibility” is a world welfare program which would have the effect of gradually reducing the American standard of living to a par with that in Ethiopia and India. This ultimate goal of worldwide “equality” is only hinted at now by some of the System’s less discreet spokesmen, but that is clearly what these internationalist utopians have in mind for us.

They are already telling us this indirectly in several ways. Because America’s livestock industry consumes so much grain, Americans are being urged to eat less meat and more rice, corn, and other cereals. Every time an American eats a steak, we are told, a child in Africa must skip four meals.

It has even been suggested that America’s well-fed cats and dogs are a luxury “the world” can no longer afford.

Alarming Agreement

At several recent worldwide economic conferences in which U.S. officials have participated, spokesmen for other countries have been even more outspoken than Washington’s liberal theorists. China’s Dr. Han Suyin, at the World Population Conference in Bucharest this fall, bluntly declared: “The reality all should face is that the rich nations must now divest themselves of their property for the benefit of the poor.”

Such an attitude on the part of the have-not nations is nothing new, of course. They have always had their hands out, and they have always considered the Western nations to be responsible for their problems. What is new and alarming is that the men in Washington who make the policies which affect all our lives are now openly agreeing with them.

Turning Down the Food Thermostats

Lester Brown, of the Overseas Development Council, has announced that the government should require Americans “to do the food equivalent of turning the thermostats down six degrees. Skip one meal a week, have a meatless day, or cut meat production by 10 per cent. This would free up to perhaps 10 or 15 million tons of grain for shipment to Asia.”

In a new book which Brown coauthored, By Bread Alone— a book which has already been promoted to Gospel status by Ford administration liberals—the fundamental axiom of the new policy is laid down: “In an interdependent world plagued with scarcity, if some of us consume more, others must of necessity consume less.” It is also assumed, of course, that such unequal consumption is an evil which must be done away with in some way.

One of the ways being put forward is the creation of a world stockpile of grain. The United States would supply the input to this stockpile, and the Afro-Asian countries would take care of the output. Control of the stockpile, of course, would fall to the United Nations, where the Africans and Asians control the votes.

food_crisis

THESE HUNGRY INDIANS are lined up for handouts of relief grain, much of which was sold by American exporters to the Soviet Union in 1972 and then resold by the Soviets to India at a profit. The 1972 American grain sales, subsidized by our government, started the rapid rise in domestic food prices which has plagued American consumers for the past two years. It is a crime against Nature and against the future of our own race to subsidize the further reproduction of these people.

Third World Threat

In order to overcome American hesitation to embrace this and other schemes for eventually bringing us down to the level of Asian coolies, media and government propagandists are making dire warnings of the threat to America which will arise if we fail to meet Afro-Asian demands for American food. The gist of these warnings is that the rapidly growing, hungry masses of the “Third World” will upset the world order and end up taking from us what they want if we don’t give it to them.

THIS IS A TYPICAL WASHINGTON POST HEADLINE, part of the brainwashing campaign to convince Americans that they must feed the rest of the world. Henry Kissinger is taking his plan for a U.S.-supplied world grain stockpile to the World Food Conference in Rome this month. Liberal church leaders, who favor the plan, have told Kissinger they will use their pulpits to gain public support for his scheme.

THIS IS A TYPICAL WASHINGTON POST HEADLINE, part of the brainwashing campaign to convince Americans that they must feed the rest of the world. Henry Kissinger is taking his plan for a U.S.-supplied world grain stockpile to the World Food Conference in Rome this month. Liberal church leaders, who favor the plan, have told Kissinger they will use their pulpits to gain public support for his scheme.

The world population, now growing at the rate of 70 million each year, will reach seven billion by the year 2,000—only 26 years from now—we are told, and there is nothing we can do about it. Furthermore, Americans will be outnumbered by about 50 to one, so we had better start being nice to everyone.

Famine and Disease

The populations of most of the so-called “undeveloped” or “developing” nations have always lived at a bare-subsistence level. Incapable of the self-discipline required either to make better use of their natural resources or to voluntarily limit their rate of reproduction, their numbers were formerly kept in check by Nature’s age-old methods: famine and disease.

Then the White man, partly from economic-imperialist motives and partly from misguided humanitarianism, cured their diseases and helped them produce more food from their land.

The result was an enormous and rapid increase in population, which has now brought many of them back to the brink of starvation again. Indeed, hundreds of thousands have already starved to death in India and northern Africa in the past year.

Effect of Meddling

The net effect of the White man’s efforts has been to leave the peoples in large areas of the non-White world worse off than they were before. Their lives were short and hard, but it was an existence to which they were accustomed, and they enjoyed certain primitive luxuries, such as a little elbow room.

Today, thanks to the “development” brought by the White man, they are able to starve in vastly greater numbers per square mile—and, consequently, under vastly more squalid, crowded, and unnatural conditions—than previously.

White Man’s Burden

The White man ‘s folly is two layers deep. First, he gratuitously assumed that he had some sort of moral responsibility to attempt to remake the other races of the earth in his own image: the so-called “White man ‘s burden” piously promoted by Christian theologians, greedy colonialists, and addlepated do-gooders ever since the 18th century.

Second—and this is a more subtle but no less grave error—he has labored under the assumption that, in undertaking to make an improvement on Nature, by doing for other peoples what they were patently unable to do for themselves, he was actually “helping” them.

Who Shall Survive?

The world food crisis now, of course, involves far more than moral issues. It involves the question of who shall inherit the earth—which peoples shall prosper and which shall do without, which shall survive and which shall perish.

But, even on moral grounds alone, there is no justification—except when using the inverted value system of neo-liberalism—for continuing to divert the diminishing resources of the West into an inevitably futile effort to save the peoples of the “Third World” from themselves. Indeed, what could be more immoral, from a cosmic point of view, than deliberately limiting the potential of the world’s ablest peoples in order to allow inferior peoples to proliferate?

Liberal Bogey Man

Beyond morality, it should be obvious that the real threat to America’s security comes from continuing to provide aid to overpopulated nations, rather than from simply letting them starve.

No matter how hungry Indians and Africans become and no matter how much they hate us, there is nothing they can do to take America’s wealth away unless we provide them with the means. What little military potential they possess has been provided by the West, and a withdrawal of Western technological aid would see that potential rapidly disappear.

The seven billion hungry non-Whites we are supposed to worry about a few years hence will never materialize if America simply refuses to continue subsidizing the present rate of population growth in Africa and Asia. Advocates of continued American food subsidies are creating their own bogey man.

There is only one proper solution to the population explosion in the non-White world, and to the concomitant world food crisis: total withdrawal of Western support, so that Nature can once again take its course.

Squeamish Americans may find that difficult to accept, but we will only make the present world situation worse and bring ultimate disaster on our own heads if we follow the course now being laid out for us by Mr. Kissinger and his colleagues in Washington.

* * *

From Attack! No. 31, 1974

transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

FacebookTumblrShare

Related Articles:

2 comments to America and the World Food Crisis

  • Franklin Ryckaert

    Instead of letting the Third World starve, one could also help them with food combined with a “one child policy” which was so successful in China. China is no more a third world country.

  • Ryan

    Franklin – I doubt the National Alliance or Dr. Pierce have any interest in helping non-whites or seeing non-white nations transition from barbarism into rivals for western White nations. I certainly don’t. I would prefer they have a “zero child policy”.

    A high mortality rate in the third world is a good thing. Having a third world that is militarily and technologically harmless is a good thing too. Most importantly, they should never be allowed to come to White nations or be in a position to threaten White nations from the outside.

    The idea that White nation should aid and reform non-White nations is a conservative idea, in a naive hope that they will eventually quit asking for handouts and become livable for their own people. The National Alliance is a racial organization and our race has enough troubles without enabling its enemies to become more numerous and advanced.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. More than three hyperlinks in your comment will delay its appearance; it will have to be manually approved.