Classic EssaysWilliam Pierce

The Slippery Minority

Jewish media oligarch Sumner Redstone and the Clintons

by Dr. William L. Pierce

EVER SINCE HE started his campaign to “pull America together” this summer, I’ve been observing Bill Clinton’s antics in this campaign with some interest. Mr. Clinton, remember, is a democrat. He is the leader of the party which claims, even more than the Republican Party, to represent the people, the majority.

I am not much of a democrat. I believe that the doctrine that every featherless biped who has reached the age of 18, regardless of race, creed, sex, sexual orientation, intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity should have an equal voice in determining our destiny is a perverse and destructive doctrine. I believe that mass democracy, democracy without qualifications, is responsible for much of the decline in our fortunes as a race during this century.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, claims to believe in democracy, to believe that the will of the majority is sacred. Now, actually, he doesn’t believe that any more than I do. Nobody with half a brain believes that, whether he’s a member of the Democratic Party or not. What Mr. Clinton and his fellow Clintonistas believe in is the will of the majority so long as that will is Politically Correct. When what the people want agrees with what the media bosses and the other clever and slippery characters around Mr. Clinton want, then Mr. Clinton is a democrat. But when the people want something that these clever and slippery characters don’t want them to have, or when the people don’t want to go along with some scheme the slippery ones have worked out for them, then Mr. Clinton forgets all about democracy and resorts to the naked police power of the Federal government to ensure that it is the slippery ones, rather than the people, who get their way.

In Mr. Clinton’s Procrustean form of democracy, the will of the people is sacred only so long as it fits. If it doesn’t fit, then it must be opposed by the power of government; it must be pulled or pushed this way or that until it does fit. I’ll give you a few examples of Mr. Clinton’s style of democracy. The majority of the American population does not agree with the Clinton government’s open-border policy. The majority believes very strongly that the government should halt the flow of illegal immigrants, and in 1994 the majority in California voted for Proposition 187, which was a first step, a very modest step, toward relieving the people of California of some of the burden of illegal immigration. But the media bosses and the other slippery ones want the flood of non-White immigrants into the United States, legal and illegal, to continue. They want to continue increasing the racial diversity of the population, and the will of the White majority be damned. So Mr. Clinton and his slippery friends ignored the will of the people; they opposed the implementation of Proposition 187, and to this day they have kept most of it blocked.

The majority of the American people also oppose affirmative action and other government programs which discriminate against the White majority. Again in California, the majority voted for Proposition 209, which required an end to racially discriminatory policies by the state government. The slippery ones didn’t like this either. Their policy has been not only to dilute the power of the White majority by encouraging massive non-White immigration, but also to encourage the racial integration of non-White minorities into the White majority, and affirmative action has played a major role in this process of racial integration by artificially raising the social and economic status of non-Whites at the expense of the White majority. Bill Clinton, instead of respecting the will of the majority, has been running around the country making speeches in an effort to keep affirmative action programs alive. In doing this he shows his contempt not only for the will of the majority in California but of the majority throughout the country, which also opposes the government’s affirmative action policies.

Another policy area where the will of the majority does not match the will of the slippery crew in the media and around Clinton is housing. Most White Americans believe that they should have some control over their own neighborhoods and their own residential property. If a retired couple decide to make a little extra income by renting out part of their home as an apartment, they usually want to exercise some degree of discretion in choosing a tenant. Very often they prefer not to rent to a homosexual couple or to non-Whites or to drug abusers. The Federal government, of course, doesn’t care what they want. The Federal government has a policy of forcing normal White people to live with non-Whites, with homosexuals, and with the other governmentally pampered groups which make up the Clinton coalition, whether they like it or not. The government looks for White neighborhoods, wherever they still exist in the country, and it tries to break them up by building welfare housing and bringing in non-Whites or other undesirables from other areas — or by requiring the local people themselves to pay for programs to bring non-Whites into their communities. At the same time the government sends in undercover police agents to arrest any Whites who attempt resistance to these programs. This sort of thing has happened in many places during the past few years. A few which come to mind are Parma, Ohio; Queens, New York; Vidor, Texas; and Berkeley, California.

Just a week ago Mr. Clinton announced that the government will be cracking down harder on Whites who try to avoid having homosexual or non-White neighbors. He was responding to complaints from some of his slippery advisers that some Whites looking for tenants for their residential property are telling rental agents of their preferences, and the rental agents in turn are using code words in their own listings of rental property to indicate these preferences. One of the code words used is “Archie,” which means that the property owner is an Archie Bunker-type person, who doesn’t want non-Whites, homosexuals, drug addicts, or other undesirables in his property. The slippery ones consider this exercise of individual property rights by our people to be intolerable, because it is in conflict with their policy of forced togetherness. Mr. Clinton, instead of responding to the will of the majority, announced that his Department of Housing and Urban Development will step up its efforts to catch these White property owners and their rental agents and prosecute them for their Politically Incorrect attitude. The democratic principle followed by the government in these cases is not respect for the will of the majority but instead intimidation of the majority and breaking up of majority solidarity.

Not even the will of the minorities in the Clinton coalition is respected if it doesn’t fit the plans of the slippery minority around Clinton which believes that it has the God-given right to decide what everyone else should do. A very recent example of this was provided at a conference in Little Rock held in connection with Mr. Clinton’s racial togetherness program. At this conference even some Black leaders were criticized for questioning the desirability of continuing to force students of all races together in the schools. The Blacks remembered that when they had had their own neighborhood schools, those schools had been an integral part of the Black community, along with Black businesses, Black churches, and other Black institutions. Young Blacks and their parents both took a greater interest in the schools in those days. There was more order and discipline in the schools, Black families were more likely to stay together, and Black students performed better. But the slippery ones don’t care at all about that; their policy is forced togetherness for Whites and Blacks at all costs, and so that is the policy of the Clinton government. Clintonian democracy is democracy which fits, democracy which suits the desires of the slippery minority.

I’ve talked specifically about the Democratic Party, because we have a Democrat in the White House now and because the Democrats always have tried to present an image which is a little warmer and fuzzier than that of the Republicans: an image which is a little more democratic. But there’s not really a great deal of difference between the two parties. They both respond to the will of the slippery minority rather than to the will of the majority.

Mr. Clinton has appointed more members of this slippery minority to high positions in his administration than any other President in history, by far. He has four members of this slippery minority in his cabinet at this time, plus a slippery national security adviser and a slippery deputy national security adviser. Both of Mr. Clinton’s appointees to the Supreme Court have been members of this slippery minority, which makes up only 2.5 per cent of the U.S. population. In fact, a scrutiny of Mr. Clinton’s high-level appointments provides some of the best evidence that he really cares nothing at all for the majority of the population but is inordinately responsive to the wishes of the slippery minority.

All of this makes for a pretty slippery form of democracy. It is a democracy only in name. Of course, true democracy, the sort of democracy the Athenians had 2,500 years ago, is hardly possible with the sort of population we have in the United States today. That’s also the case with representative democracy, the variety of democracy which we supposedly have in the United States. In the first place, you cannot have any true consensus, any true expression of the will of a people, unless the electorate really is representative of a people, of one people, of one nation, with common origins, common traditions, a common morality, a common vision of the future. If this consensus is missing, then you end up with everyone simply grabbing for what he can get, and to hell with everyone else. That’s what democracy has degenerated to in Washington today.

In the second place, even if the franchise were restricted only to persons of European ancestry, only to adult White males, you cannot expect them to be able to vote in accord with the interests of our people when the news and entertainment media are in the slippery hands of a non-European minority, a minority with roots in the Middle East and a morality and a vision of the future quite at odds with ours. The mass media simply have too much power, too much influence. Whoever controls the media — whoever controls television programming — can control the outcome of elections. Too many people are under the spell of the mass media. For too many people the false, biased world they see on their television screens is more influential, more persuasive, than the real world around them.

Not only are the slippery people who control the mass media able to mold the public’s perceptions of political candidates, they also are able to manipulate the public’s attitudes on all sorts of vital issues: race, for example, or foreign policy.

In regard to foreign policy, the American public has been trained by the media to think of the Islamic peoples — Arabs, Iranians, and so on — as terrorists, and of the Israelis as the innocent victims of terrorism. The truth of the matter is that it always has been the Israelis who have been the foremost practitioners of terrorism. Even before the state of Israel was formed in 1948, the Jews in Palestine were using political assassination and terror bombings on a large scale to achieve their ends.

The Jewish terrorists were not just out-of-control individuals: they were Jews acting in accord with Jewish policy at the highest levels. The terror bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 in which 90 people were killed, was directed by Menachem Begin, who later became the prime minister of Israel. In 1948, when Jews massacred the entire populations of Palestinian villages and mutilated the bodies of their victims in an effort to frighten other Palestinian civilians in Palestine into fleeing the country and leaving it to the Jews, they were acting in accord with the policy of Jewish leaders who later occupied high posts in the Israeli government. The botched assassination attempt on an Islamic religious leader in Jordan by two Israeli terrorists last week, in which a special Israeli poison was injected into his ear by Mossad agents, was ordered by the present Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The Jews have perfected the art of terrorism and have a thousand subtle ways of assassinating people they don’t like, while the Arabs and Iranians still depend primarily on such primitive methods as suicide bombers.

The Jews train assassins and terrorists in government-run schools in Israel, and money from American taxpayers supports the operation of these schools. The Arabs and other Islamic peoples have nothing to compare with this. And yet the American public has been persuaded by the mass media that it is the Palestinians fighting for their freedom from Israeli oppression who are terrorists, and the Jews oppressing them who are victims. Jewish terrorism is never called “terrorism” by the controlled media, and when it is mentioned at all it is described as a “military operation” or a “commando operation.” When one sends an assassination team into a country with whom one is not at war and uses a car bomb to kill a civilian victim, along with civilian bystanders who happen to be in the area, it is terrorism, not war. When one sends an assassination team into another country with whom one is not at war in order to murder a religious leader with an exotic poison, it is terrorism, not war. When an Israeli assassination team sneaks into another yet country to kill someone the Jews don’t like, and also kills his wife, children, and dinner guests so there won’t be any witnesses, it is terrorism, but the American people hear only about a “commando raid,” and they never hear about the murder of the wife, children, and dinner guests.

It is misrepresentation by the controlled media in America which is responsible for American misunderstanding of the rights and wrongs of what is happening in the Middle East between the Jews and the Arabs.

And this is not a trivial matter. Americans currently send billions of dollars in financial and military aid to Israel every year. This would never have developed if the controlled media didn’t cover up Israel’s deliberate attempt in 1967 to sink the USS Liberty and blame it on the Arabs: an attempt which cost the lives of 34 Americans and wounded 171. The deception continues. We fought the Gulf War against Iraq because we were lied to by the controlled media. We maintain an economic blockade of Iraq which costs the lives of thousands of Iraqi children very month, because Israel demands it, not because it serves American interests, but we would never learn this from the controlled media. And we are very likely to be lied into yet another war, a major war, in the Middle East on behalf of Israel.

Mr. Clinton, terrified of impeachment and imprisonment as the details of his illegal fund-raising activities continue to leak out, will do whatever the media bosses tell him to do in order to save himself. And the very slippery media bosses are continuing to build the pressure on him day after day, so that he dare not even think of acting contrary to their wishes. As we watch developments in the United States and in the Middle East, we can see the likelihood of being lied into another war by the media growing.

This situation is something we must change. Whether you are interested in restoring democracy, or whether you simply are concerned about a viable future for our people, we must end this slippery minority’s control, this Jewish control, of our news and entertainment media. We must get these people off our back. We must break their control over our government. We will not survive if the Jews continue to control the political process in America.

* * *

Source: American Dissident Voices broadcast, October 1997

For Further Reading

Previous post

World War 2: Battling the People of the Lie, part 5

Next post

The Enemy of Our Enemies: A Critique of Francis Parker Yockey's The Enemy of Europe, part 1

No Comments Yet

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.