Freedom Under Attack
EDITOR’S NOTE: This 1994 work by William Pierce is sobering and prophetic. Indeed, as Dr. Pierce said, “Many Americans, even those who are well read and keep up with politics and current events, simply cannot grasp the monstrousness of what has happened to their country.” It is high time we joined together to support and implement the National Alliance program.
* * *
by Dr. William L. Pierce
THE GOVERNMENT ASSAULT on the Second Amendment has been much in the news this year. Less noticed, however, even by the Second Amendment’s fervent defenders, has been the ongoing effort to scrap the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Just as with the effort against the Second Amendment, which has been depicted by the mass media as an effort to “control crime,” the campaigns against other fundamental liberties have been mounted under false rubrics for the purpose of deception. The enemies of the First Amendment, for example, want their efforts to stamp out Politically Incorrect speech to be viewed as a campaign for “human rights.” Paramount among these human rights, in their view, is the right to feel good about oneself at all times (unless, of course, one is a heterosexual White male): hence, any spoken or printed word which may be offensive to members of an officially favored segment of the population is to be banned.
The efforts to stamp out “offensive” speech have been reported earlier in these pages: see, for example, “The Campaign to Outlaw ‘Hate'” in issue No. 111, and “The Destruction of the Academy” in issue No. 112. Unfortunately, the enthusiasm of the speech regulators for their work continues to grow. At the same time that they are becoming more Orwellian in their efforts, they are having more success at enlisting the police powers of the state to back them up.
In some recent cases the law already has gone far beyond anything George Orwell himself could have imagined. In 1988 Congress enacted the Fair Housing Amendments Act (an enhancement of the Fair Housing Act of 1968), imposing severe criminal and civil penalties on anyone who interferes with the housing rights of federally favored groups. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which administers both acts, interprets as illegal interference any complaint–even a letter to a newspaper–about any of its projects to homogenize the U.S. population by establishing housing projects for its favored groups in predominantly White areas. It has sued or threatened criminal and/or civil action against a number of complainers recently: people who have objected to HUD plans for “rehabilitation centers” or “group homes” in their neighborhoods to house drug addicts or homeless alcoholics, for example. (The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 added mentally and physically handicapped persons to the federally favored list, and HUD and the courts since have ruled that alcoholics, drug addicts, and persons with AIDS are included among the handicapped.)
HUD’s campaign to imprison or bankrupt dissenters has been in the spotlight recently as the result of its threats against three Berkeley, California, residents–Alexandra White, Joseph Deringer, and Richard Graham–who protested HUD plans to establish a housing project for homeless alcoholics in their neighborhood. Before recent publicity caused HUD to back off a bit, the three were threatened with a year in prison and fines of $100,000 each if they did not cease their protests. They were ordered to turn over to HUD all of their correspondence, memoranda, press statements, and other papers connected with their objections to the project, so that government lawyers could look for evidence against them.
If this sounds like HUD never heard about the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, don’t be alarmed. Assistant Secretary Roberta Achtenberg, the lesbian Jewess appointed by Bill Clinton to the second-ranking position in HUD, has assured reporters covering the aforementioned Berkeley case that HUD will not infringe the Constitutional rights of persons who object to its projects–provided that their objections are not based on the specific characteristics of the favored group for whom the housing is being provided.
Thus, HUD will not bring charges against someone who objects to a home for persons with AIDS being established in his neighborhood, if his objection is that the home would be too far from the nearest hospital or that the neighborhood lacks other facilities needed by the home’s residents. But if he objects that people with AIDS are a generally unsavory lot–homosexuals, non-Whites, drug addicts–and he doesn’t want his children coming in contact with them, then the Bill of Rights goes out the window. Ms. Achtenberg, who seems to have a larger role in making housing policy than her nominal superior at HUD, Henry Cisneros, believes that when the Bill of Rights collides with the special rights legislated in recent decades for the government’s favored minorities, the special rights should prevail. After all, the Bill of Rights was enacted more than 200 years ago by White males, some of them slave owners and none of them “gay” or Jewish, and this in itself makes it déclassé.
Unfortunately for most of us, the courts have been moving inexorably toward Ms. Achtenberg’s view of things. The controlled media already are there. The August 29, 1994, issue of U.S. News & World Report, the most “conservative” of America’s major weekly newsmagazines, commented on the Berkeley case:
- HUD should clear the air quickly with clear guidelines that acknowledge First Amendment protections. It is one thing to organize to keep blacks out of an all-white area and quite another to question, as some Berkeley people did, a decision to put a home for alcoholics near two liquor stores. . . .
- HUD officials suggest that it is illegal discrimination to question housing programs on the basis of protected characteristics of those to be housed. That is clear and just when we are talking about race, illness or physical disability. It’s not so clear when the people to be housed are disorganized street people who qualify as a protected class because of drug problems or the fact that they happened to contract AIDS.
A careless reader who skims quickly over this commentary might get the false impression that U.S. News & World Report believes in the First Amendment. Actually, the magazine is owned and edited by one of Ms. Achtenberg’s kinsmen, Mortimer Zuckerman, and he is clever enough with words to create such an impression even in careful readers. Too many people will let themselves be bullied into positions they really didn’t want to take, rather than appear unreasonable or “extreme”: “We must acknowledge First Amendment protections of our right to dissent–so long as we don’t say anything racist or anti-homosexual or . . . .” It’s much like the “defense” of the Second Amendment we’ve been hearing from a lot of politicians recently: “We must not infringe the right to keep and bear arms–that is, the right of a well-regulated militia, under the control of the government.”
Criticizing HUD’s housing policies is not the only thing White Americans no longer can do: they also must be extraordinarily careful in formulating their personal housing policies, if that involves advertising to sell or rent real estate. The Fair Housing Act, as amended in 1988, prohibits advertising which “indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin or an intention to make any such preference,” and this provision of the law is now being enforced with a vengeance by Ms. Achtenberg and her cohorts at HUD. Almost any indication in an apartment or real estate advertisement that the owner is looking for normal, healthy, or decent tenants or buyers is verboten. The guiding philosophy is that no member of a favored group must feel excluded, no one must be offended, no one must even be reminded of whatever it is that gives him an officially favored status. Thus, an advertisement for an apartment that specifies “no drug addicts” or “no drinkers” will bring a team of HUD enforcers with a subpoena in a hurry.
The tyranny of the Fair Housing Act goes far beyond the imposition of punishment by the government itself, however; like other “civil rights” laws, it encourages aggrieved members of favored groups to file ruinous civil suits against anyone who has offended them, and many members of these increasingly uppity groups are very easily offended. This provides a lucrative opportunity for some lawyers, who are getting together with local minorities and organizing “fair housing councils” or the like to ferret out possibilities for lawsuits and for complaints to HUD against property owners, realtors, and even the newspapers which carry real estate advertising.
Some of the complainants feel compelled to push the law to its limits. A woman describing her religion as “non-Christian” is suing a newspaper in Salem, Oregon, for religious discrimination because it ran an apartment-for-rent advertisement on Easter Sunday under a logo consisting of a bunny in a flower basket and the words “Happy Easter.” Ms. Achtenberg is investigating the matter.
Such complaints may seem ridiculous, but they are not amusing at all to a property owner of modest means who becomes a target. He usually finds himself in a no-win situation: even if he prevails against the complainant and HUD, he may have to sell his property to pay his legal expenses.
Terrified of lawsuits, newspapers and realtors are censoring themselves. They have compiled a long list of “discriminatory” and “offensive” words and phrases which should not be used in advertisements. Some especially careful realtors have gone so far that they no longer use the phrase “master bedroom,” because Blacks may be offended by a reminder of the master/slave relationship. Nor will they mention a “walk-in closet” or a “spectacular view,” lest a lame or blind person take offense.
Absurd? Not to the favored groups, who are intoxicated with their new power to exact vengeance for a thousand real or imagined slights by making the resented majority dance to their tune. Tim Kearney (disability unspecified), program coordinator for the Fair Housing Council of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, is typical. He is eager to hold the majority’s feet to the fire by suing whenever he imagines that he sees an objectionable advertisement: “If somebody didn’t pick up the phone [to respond to a housing ad] because they [sic] felt excluded by the wording, you have [grounds for] a complaint. All day long some people suffer pangs and stings of discrimination, and it adds up. That’s what civil rights is all about.”
Many Americans, even those who are well read and keep up with politics and current events, simply cannot grasp the monstrousness of what has happened to their country. They have learned in school that the American Revolution was fought by men who valued their honor and freedom above all else, men who established the U.S. government and wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and they know that the officeholders who make, administer, and judge our laws today are sworn to uphold that Constitution and that Bill of Rights. They cannot grasp the fact that a substantial portion of these officeholders are now people who hold the Constitution in utter contempt and are working diligently to undermine and destroy it, and virtually all the rest are people willing to go along with the former as long as it is the fashionable thing to do.
Most Americans, who have grown up believing that they had an absolute right to say whatever they wanted to say, do not understand that they no longer have that right. It has been taken away from them, almost without a fight.
Should Americans really be surprised by this development, though? Do they really believe that they can permit a lesbian Jewess to set government policy and not use her power against the heterosexual Gentiles she despises so vehemently? Do they really believe that they can permit a piece of filth like Bill Clinton to occupy the White House, and still keep their freedom?
The key, of course, is the control of the media by an element utterly alienated from the White majority of Americans; an element whose ancestors did not share in our revolutionary struggle for freedom; an element with no conception of personal honor and no tradition of liberty; an element whose whole, parasitic history is one of conspiracy, subversion, deception, and conflict with the host people among whom they have lived. They spent decades laying the groundwork for what is happening now. When they finally were able to get a man like Clinton in a position where he could make top-level appointments of their kind of people to the Supreme Court and the Federal bureaucracy, why should they forbear? They want their pound of flesh, and they want it now.
They will get it, and more. They will feast on the goyim again, as their ancestors feasted on the fat of Egypt and a hundred other nations. They will feast until the emasculated, liberalized, fashion-subservient goyim find their manhood again and put a final end to them and their collaborators.
* * *
Source: National Vanguard Magazine — Number 114 (November-December 1994)