Classic EssaysWilliam Pierce

To Be, or Not to Be

pierce_heritage_stamp

One of Dr. Pierce’s most powerful works

by Dr. William L. Pierce

I’VE SPOKEN about the murderous racial attacks against the farmers in Rhodesia during the previous two broadcasts, but the situation there continues to worsen, and I’m obliged to speak about it again today, because the mass media in America continue largely to avoid the subject. In addition to the invasion of White farms by armed Black gangs and the murder of White farmers, the Black supporters of dictator Robert Mugabe have turned to a new terror tactic against Whites: the gang rape of White women.

Eleven days ago, on April 18, a Black gang burst into the home of a White family just outside Salisbury, now called “Harare.” They seized 28-year-old Brendan Jowett and repeatedly smashed him in the head and face with a brick, until he lost consciousness. They dragged his 25-year-old wife Tonia into a bedroom and gang-raped her. Then they found Tonia’s 18-year-old sister, Laura Wiggins, hiding in a cupboard. They dragged her out and raped her repeatedly.

Then the Blacks poured furniture polish, which they believed was fuel oil, over their victims and attempted to set them afire, first with matches and then with a burning log from the fireplace, but the furniture polish would not burn. Finally the Blacks stole everything they could carry away and fled. On the same day another White farmer and his wife had gasoline poured on them, but when the Blacks were ready to burn their victims they discovered that they had forgotten to bring matches. The farmer and his wife got away with a brutal beating and the wrecking and looting of their home. White Rhodesians should at least be thankful for the ineptitude of the Blacks.

In the face of the overwhelming numerical advantage held by the Blacks, Black ineptitude is not enough to save the Whites of Rhodesia from their enemies, unfortunately. As I reported last Saturday, on Tuesday of last week, a Black mob murdered Martin Olds on his farm near Bulawayo, Rhodesia’s second-largest city. The 43-year-old White farmer knew that Black mobs were operating in his area, and he had sent his wife Kathy and his two children, 17-year-old Martine and 14-year-old Angus, to stay with friends in the city. Olds was a former member of the Grey Scouts, Rhodesia’s elite anti-terrorist unit, before his country surrendered itself to Black rule in 1979. His neighbors considered him completely fearless. Ten years ago, when a friend had been seized by a crocodile, Olds had leaped from his boat and wrestled the crocodile in order to free his friend.

Olds was alone on his 12,000-acre cattle farm when a mob of 70 armed Blacks attacked his farmhouse early Tuesday morning. He telephoned the police station, which was less than ten minutes away, but the Black police didn’t show up until five hours later, after he was dead and the attackers were gone. Olds defended himself with a shotgun and a hunting rifle, and he wounded several of his attackers. He himself was hit by several bullets, and the bone in one leg was shattered. He bandaged and splinted his leg and continued defending himself until he lost consciousness. Then the Blacks swarmed over him and beat him to death with clubs.

As the news of the gang rapes and of the murder of Martin Olds spread, many White farm families abandoned their homes and fled to the cities. Black gangs then were free to wreck and loot their homes without any resistance. One thing the Black gangs always do is kill any pets the Whites leave behind when they flee. Two days after the Olds murder, on Thursday of last week, an Associated Press TV News camera crew happened to be present when a mob of 200 Blacks rampaged through a White farm near the town of Arcturus, 35 miles northeast of Salisbury. The farm belongs to Alan Windram, but Windram and his family already had fled. The Blacks found Windram’s six dogs and beat and stoned them to death while the Associated Press crew filmed the incident. The Blacks were hooting, jumping around, and gesticulating in their typical manner while they killed the dogs, obviously enjoying themselves immensely. Then the Blacks wrecked Windram’s farmhouse and burned the homes of at least 30 of his workers. All of this was recorded by the Associated Press camera crew, but believe me, it’ll be a cold day in hell before you see any of it on network television in America. It makes Blacks look bad. It might make some animal lovers like Blacks less.

Coincidentally, at the same time Martin Olds was being murdered on April 18, squads of Black police were raiding other White farms in the same area and seizing firearms from White farmers, leaving them defenseless. And also on that day, which happened to be the anniversary of the surrender of White Rhodesia to the Blacks, Britain’s Queen Elizabeth sent a message of congratulation and goodwill to Robert Mugabe. And the Queen expressed not a word of concern or disapproval about Mugabe’s genocidal policy toward Rhodesia’s White farmers. The British government, of course, has been on the wrong side of the Black campaign against Whites in Africa ever since being on the wrong side of the Second World War.

Oh, yes: the British government did make one additional statement about Rhodesia on April 18. Tony Blair’s Foreign Office announced that no special considerations would be given to White Rhodesians seeking asylum in Britain from the ethnic cleansing now going on in Rhodesia, or “Zimbabwe,” as Blair and company prefer to call it. They will not be permitted into Britain unless they can prove that they will be able to support themselves. As I mentioned last week, Tony Blair is not eager to have an influx of White immigrants who almost certainly will not vote for his party. Black Rhodesians, yes; White Rhodesians, no.

But there is one resident of Rhodesia, neither White nor Black, who always will find a cordial welcome in Tony Blair’s Britain. That is a 54-year-old man named Nicholas Hoogstraten. Hoogstraten is a billionaire landowner in Rhodesia. He began buying land there in 1963 and now owns nine large farms and cattle ranches totaling more than a million acres. He also is a long-time financial backer of Robert Mugabe and his Zimbabwe African National Union-Popular Front, or ZANU-PF for short. He began backing Mugabe in the 1960s and continued backing him all during the time ZANU was waging a terrorist war against Rhodesia’s White population. He still backs Mugabe financially, and in an interview with a major British newspaper, the Guardian, which appeared in the April 21 issue of that newspaper, he disparaged Rhodesia’s White farmers and blamed the country’s present turmoil entirely on them. He told the Guardian: “This has all been stirred up by White disenfranchised trash who still think it’s Rhodesia. I have some good White friends in Zimbabwe, but these Rhodies, as we call them, are disgusting people. They want to ruin the country. They treat the Blacks worse than Blacks are treated in America. I’ve had no problem with indigenizing my properties.” What he meant by that last statement is that when he buys a farm from a White family fleeing the country to get away from the Black terrorists he supports, he fires the White managers and foremen and hires Blacks belonging to Mugabe’s party to take the Whites’ place. He told the Guardian that he expects that this practice, plus his continued support for Mugabe, will ensure that his properties will remain safe from the marauding mobs of squatters who have been wrecking and taking over White farms.

Last Friday’s Guardian also provides a number of other fascinating details about Hoogstraten. For example, he went to prison briefly in the 1960s after he threw a hand grenade at the home of a business rival. One detail the Guardian neglected to mention, however, is that Hoogstraten is a Jew. His family, after being expelled from Spain at the end of the 15th century, settled in the Netherlands, which accounts for his Dutch-sounding name. During the 17th and 18th centuries his family were among the Netherlands’ most active dealers in Black slaves, shipping hundreds of thousands of them from the west coast of Africa to the New World. He is a kike’s kike. Not only does he refer to the men and women who built Rhodesia as “White trash,” but he refers to Gentile women as “chattels” — that’s the word this unbelievably arrogant Hebrew actually used in his Guardian interview — and bragged to the newspaper that he keeps his mansions in Brighton, in Cannes, in Monte Carlo, in Maryland, in Florida, and in Rhodesia stocked with White women for his pleasure.

Imagine how pleased with himself Hoogstraten must be. He goes to Rhodesia in 1963 as a 17-year-old with the money his ancestors made selling Black flesh; he sizes up the conflict between the White Rhodesians and the Black terrorists and bets that the terrorists will win because the Whites are too soft and too Christian to beat them; he secretly makes contact with the terrorists and begins financing Mugabe; and at the same time he begins buying up White farm land. When the Whites finally cave in and give up, the price of land in Rhodesia drops sharply and Hoogstraten is able to buy much more of it. Now he is forcing the price of land even lower by continuing to support Mugabe’s terrorist tactics and expects soon to be in a position to buy as much more land as he wants at fire-sale prices.

That is really Tony Blair’s kind of Jew. How the trendy liberals of Britain must admire him! As for me, Hoogstraten’s really exceptional behavior — living among Rhodesia’s Whites and pretending to be one of them while secretly financing the Black terrorist gangs who were killing White farmers and their wives and children, all so that he would be better positioned to grab their land — is just one more bit of evidence that Jews indeed are not like us. It is difficult even to believe that they belong to the same species.

Even without the malign influence of Hoogstraten and his ilk, the Rhodesians had serious problems in the 1960s and 1970s, and because they are problems which also afflict us in America and our kinsmen in Europe today, they deserve our attention. In the face of a Black terrorist war against them in the 1960s and 1970s, the Rhodesians were presented with the need to make a hard decision: either to yield their country to the Blacks or to put an end to the threat. They evaded this decision and tried to choose a middle course, and they fell between two stools.

In the 1950s Rhodesia was a prosperous, White country, and it was a very pleasant place to live. The Rhodesians had worked hard and well to build their country and develop their farms. They were a nation of strong men and beautiful women. They played as hard as they worked. Rhodesia was the jewel in the crown of the British Empire. When the rot back in London led the British government to begin dismantling its empire and turning its colonies over to the local savages, the Rhodesians declared their independence and made an effort to preserve the country where they had been born and bred. But the rot had infected the Rhodesians as well.

It was easy enough for them to see the trend of things in the world. The forces of liberalism and egalitarianism had won the bloodiest and most destructive war in the history of the world. The best people all over Europe had been hunted down and butchered, and the worst people were ruling. Democracy and equality were triumphant, and their minions were eager to spread their plague to the whole world — or at least, to the whole White world. Though infected with the same madness raging in Europe, the Rhodesians naturally enough were not eager to commit suicide. They refused to turn their country over to the gangs of Black terrorists which were beginning to become active with the support of predatory Jews such as Hoogstraten — and also with the support of the Christian churches, in which the madness seems to have taken hold with special virulence.

But the problem extended beyond the Jews and the Christian clerics. It was in the Rhodesian people themselves. During the war they also had supported enthusiastically the forces of darkness and democracy. It was not so easy after the war to realize that they had made a terrible mistake, and that the master they had served during the war was preparing to devour them, just as it had devoured the Germans and the Poles and the Hungarians and the Ukrainians and the Russians and the Latvians and many another nation of their kinsmen in Europe. And I’m not talking now only about Soviet Communism. I’m talking about the more general sickness, the more general madness, of which communism is merely an extreme manifestation.

As I said, it was easy enough for the Rhodesians to see the trend of things, to see the push for more equality and more democracy everywhere, and the more thoughtful Rhodesians certainly could extrapolate the trend and realize that it would mean the death of their country. But already caught up in it as they were, they could not bring themselves simply to reject it altogether and to reorient themselves in a better and healthier direction. They could not simply say, “Whoa! We see now where this madness of equality and democracy is heading. We can see that it means yielding ourselves to Black rule and watching everything that we have built be destroyed. We refuse to take that course. We reject equality and democracy. We recognize every institution and every group and every individual trying to push us along that course as our enemy, and we will oppose our enemies with all of our strength of body and mind and spirit.” That was what they should have said, but they didn’t. The rot was already in their own souls.

To be, or not to be: that was the question faced by the Rhodesians, and they did not have the strength of character to choose to be and then to accept all of the implications of that choice. They did not want not to be, but they could not accept what the choice to be entailed, and so now they will perish. The country they and their forefathers worked and sacrificed for will fall into the hands of creatures such as Hoogstraten and Mugabe, who chose to be, and who accepted all of the implications of that choice.

What are the implications of choosing to be instead of not to be, of choosing life instead of death? The Rhodesians should have assessed their situation realistically when their problem became apparent, around 1955 or so, and they should have accepted the fact that they could not continue existing as a ruling minority over a Black majority when the rest of the world was hell-bent for equality and democracy. They did not have the option which has worked so well for the Jews nearly everywhere of disguising themselves and blending in with the majority population. They could not pretend to be Shonas or Zulus or what have you, the way Hoogstraten had pretended to be a White Rhodesian, while maintaining a secret unity among themselves and also maintaining their control and ownership of the country. It wasn’t just that the very obvious racial differences would have kept them from blending in and convincing anyone that they were Blacks, the way Hoogstraten had been able to blend in and convince everyone that he was a Rhodesian; they also couldn’t squat in their filth and scratch their fleas and eat insects — or each other, in order to persuade the world that they really were equal to the Blacks.

Since they couldn’t blend in, they might have tried another Jewish tactic: control the opposition. If loyal, healthy Rhodesians had owned the big newspapers back in Britain and had gotten their people into the controlling positions in the BBC — and also in Hollywood, since the output of Hollywood poisons the whole White world, and not just America — if White Rhodesians had been able to control the media in Britain and America, and therefore control the British government and British public opinion, they could have continued in the more or less quiet possession of their country indefinitely. They could have suppressed the deranged clerics, and they could have used any Black terrorist groups which sprang up for weekend target practice. But that option really wasn’t open to them either. They didn’t control the media. The Jews did, and the Jews weren’t about to let go. The Rhodesians simply didn’t have the resources or the time to take the media away from the Jews, even if they had had the will.

The one option open to them was to get rid of the Blacks. The only reason there was a Black majority in Rhodesia was that the Whites who had come to Rhodesia before them had made the country fertile and prosperous and able to support a much larger population. There had been only 100,000 Blacks in the whole area when the Whites began farming in Rhodesia. And of course, the Whites utilized the Blacks for labor. They thought that course more economically sound than exterminating or expelling them. And in the short run it was, but now the long run is catching up with them. In America in the 17th and 18th centuries it seemed economically sound to buy Black slaves from Mr. Hoogstraten’s ancestors to work the land in the southern colonies, but now the long run has caught up with White Americans also.

It would have been very difficult, very costly, very painful, for the Rhodesians to extricate themselves from their mess in 1950. It would have required determination and intelligence and subterfuge, but it could have been done — if they had had the will to do it. They might even have done it in 1960. But in neither 1950 nor 1960 did they have the will. The Christians among them would have been horrified by the thought of getting rid of the Blacks, of either eradicating them or driving them out, just as the Christians in America today cannot cope with the demands of racial survival in this world.

But it wasn’t just the Christian inability to make hard decisions. Greed and plain, old-fashioned stupidity played major roles as well. The big commercial farmers were interested in current profits above all. They weren’t willing to give up their Black workers. They weren’t willing to do the expensive things needed to replace the Black workers, such as offering free land or very cheap land to White workers in Europe or America or South Africa, if they would come to Rhodesia. The big commercial farmers thought themselves indispensable. They could not imagine the Blacks would be so foolish as to kill the goose which was laying the golden eggs. They were willing to sacrifice the interests of their fellow Whites in order to hold onto their own advantages.

And as I just said there also was much stupidity. Even today there are White Rhodesians who believe that the problem is just Robert Mugabe. If another Black, a more reasonable Black, would take his place, then things would be all right in Rhodesia again, they believe.

Well, as I said, the Rhodesians could not accept the hard requirements of choosing life in this hard and unforgiving world, and so now they will perish. Let us in America ponder that, and let at least some of us learn from it.

* * *

Source: American Dissident Voices broadcast, April 29th 2000

For Further Reading

Previous post

I Remember Dr. Pierce

Next post

William Pierce: A Birthday Remembrance

1 Comment

  1. Joey Virgo
    September 11, 2016 at 1:11 pm — Reply

    Dante Alighieri reserves the first rung of Hell for those who refused to take sides in Book I, “The Inferno,” of The Divine Comedy. Some poets referred to these fence-sitters deserving eternal damnation — in translation — as “neutral angels.” Those who decide to remain neutral on important issues related to the future welfare of the city, state or nation Dante despised.

    These fence-sitters typically feel that whatever sides wins, they eventually might receive gain from. So they watch the spectacle of others losing their lives and dying for a cause without interest or compassion because they only hope for their own future comfort and safety with whatever side wins.

    The biggest angel in Dante’s Hell, of course, is Lucifer, who has in his mouth the traitor Judas iscariot — up to his waist in the ice of eternal indifference

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.