Classic EssaysWilliam Pierce

Four More Years

bill-clinton-to-obama-honor-your-commitment-on-obamacare

“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.” –Euripides

by Dr. William L. Pierce

CHOOSING a man of Bill Clinton’s character to be President once is solid evidence that a nation is in a terminal state of moral decay. Doing it twice in a row is beyond human comprehension.

Of course, there are consolations. First, in the recent election Clinton (pictured) received only a small fraction of the heterosexual White male votes. Furthermore, he received less than half of all the votes cast, even when all the votes of the freaks, perverts, feminists, deranged liberals, trendy whiners, born losers, drug dealers, Food Stamp recipients, Jews, hastily naturalized Third World immigrants, and other dysfunctional or non-White citizens who make up his natural constituency are credited to him. The controlled media have had remarkably little to say about this fact, so happy are they that he squeaked by with a plurality, but it definitely takes a lot of the luster off his victory and at least a little of the wind out of his sails.

Second, the Congress remains in the hands of the other party, which, although it may be on about the same moral level as Mr. Clinton’s party, at least has some opposed interests. We can reasonably expect, therefore, to see Mr. Clinton and the Republicans continue to snap and snarl at each other as they jostle for the best positions at the public trough, and we can hope that this snarling and jostling will keep both sides sufficiently preoccupied that the government will be able to do slightly less damage to the country than it would otherwise.

Third, and most promising, the real winner in the recent election, backed by 51% of the electorate, was “none of the above,” as more Americans than at any time since the 1920s indicated their disgust with the whole process–or at least, their lack of enthusiasm for participating in the charade–by staying away from the polls.

To find much joy in any of these things is about like the Germans in June 1945 noting that at least the bombing had stopped, while Soviet soldiers continued to gang-rape their wives and daughters, groups of vengeful Jews in Allied uniforms roamed their cities with guns and long lists of citizens to be murdered summarily, and the Americans stole everything they could get their hands on.

White Americans, in other words, can expect four more years of the same sort of government-sponsored rapine and plunder of what is left of their civilization, their republic, and their freedom that they have experienced during the previous four years–with a few interesting, new twists.

One of those twists is the increasingly manifest Jewishness of the Clinton gang. With Jews taking over the State Department and the Defense Department–in addition to the Jews Clinton already had appointed to head the Treasury Department and the Agriculture Department–Jews will be in the top positions in three of the four most important departments of the executive branch and will occupy more than a third of all the seats in the Clinton Cabinet (counting the chairman of the National Security Council as a Cabinet member). This may not give the Jews much more real power than they wielded before, since government long has been dancing to whatever tune was played by the media, but it certainly will make their power more visible.

Clinton may have found it expedient to play the role of “moderate” or even “conservative” during his recent campaign, but there are certain very “liberal” programs which his gang will push even harder during his second term than they did during the first: among those programs are the scrapping of the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. The elements of the population which are willing to give up all of the rights guaranteed by these amendments in return for the promise of more security and/or more handouts may not yet constitute an absolute majority, but they certainly are enough to swing an election, as recent events have shown. Actually, many of those who either voted Republican or abstained also fall into this category.

Disarmament of the civilian population through gun control laws and the silencing of dissidents with new “hate speech” legislation are top priorities of the Jewish cabal around Clinton. Most of the spokesmen for this cabal will aver their support for the Constitution and their love of freedom, of course, but one needs only to look at what they are doing, as opposed to what they are saying–or to look at what their brethren have done to muzzle their critics in nearly every European country–in order to understand what their true aims are.

The out-of-control KGB agencies of the Clinton government–most notably the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) and the FBI–will be even more out of control during his second term, if the present trends continue. Under the guise of “fighting terrorism” they will increase their use of paid informants and provocateurs to “set up” dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then will carry out searches and seizures on even flimsier pretexts than they employ now.

Recent Clinton administration attacks on two militia groups, one in Arizona and one in West Virginia, provide troubling examples of this trend. The West Virginia group was charged with plotting to “place explosives near” the FBI’s new $200 million Criminal Justice Information Services Division complex in Clarksburg, West Virginia. This complex will house powerful computers and a huge, digitized fingerprint database, allowing the FBI to make instant matches between fingerprints in the field and those of persons in their database. The “explosives” the group owned turned out to be firecrackers, filled with flash powder and suitable only for use in training exercises, and the “conspiracy” turned out to be a series of “what if” speculations initiated (and surreptitiously recorded) by the FBI’s provocateurs, but the media reported the matter in lurid and sensational terms, describing the arrested militia members as “terrorists” and praising the FBI for averting a “tragedy.”

This growing collaboration between the controlled mass media and the secret police is an especially worrisome trend. In every confrontation between the Clinton regime and dissident groups, from Janet Reno’s mass burning of religious dissidents at Waco in 1993 to the recent militia-busting effort, the Jewish media have cheered on the government’s gun-toting thugs and portrayed their victims as dangerous criminals. When the FBI could not find a shred of evidence linking security guard Richard Jewell to the bombing at the Atlanta Olympics last summer (except, of course, that as a heterosexual White male he was automatically suspect), it arranged with its newspaper and television friends for him to be lynched by media. Back in the bad, old days, when the FBI investigated Communists and their ilk, the media took an adversary position. In the Clinton era, however, with most of the FBI’s energies devoted to hunting down White males who have hurt the feelings of some sensitive “gay” creature or failed to smile politely during a sidewalk encounter with a White woman on the arm of a Black male, the media have become the Bureau’s biggest boosters.

Some optimists believed that the public revulsion against the bloody excesses of the BATF and the FBI at Waco and Ruby Ridge would embarrass the Clinton government into reining in its secret police agencies, but Bill Clinton, with his habit of dropping his trousers in front of female staffers and telling them to “kiss it,” is not a man who is easily embarrassed. Every sign is that Waco and Ruby Ridge will become the norm for future government efforts to keep dissidents in line.

With two Jews already on the Supreme Court and four more years to bring the Semitic quota in the Federal judiciary up to Cabinet standards, we also can expect to see more instances of double-jeopardy prosecutions, with Federal prosecutors feeling free to bring civil rights charges whenever state courts deliver Politically Incorrect verdicts in favor of White “hate criminals.” In general, the transformation of America’s judicial system from an instrument of justice into an instrument of repression will continue.

I predicted several years ago that in the 1990s America would enter an era of growing domestic terrorism, with increasingly intrusive and repressive government measures provoking terrorist activity by dissident groups and individuals, which in turn would be used to justify still more intrusive and repressive measures by the government. In fact, I forecast a scenario of this sort in a political novel I wrote in the early 1970s, The Turner Diaries. If Robert Dole had won the recent election, this escalating cycle of repression-terrorism-more repression-more terrorism might have been damped temporarily, but with Bill Clinton in office it can only accelerate.

Conservative patriots who do not want to face this reality may cling instead to the hope that in the second Clinton administration we will witness the mother of all political scandals, eclipsing even Watergate into insignificance, as the criminal past of Bill and Hillary Clinton finally catches up with them. Investigations already were underway before the election into Bill Clinton’s involvement in drug trafficking and money laundering during his governorship in Arkansas, into his recent soliciting of campaign donations from foreigners, and into matters which could lead to perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Hillary Clinton. If the Democrats had won the Congress in this election, Bill Clinton might have saved himself and Hillary by guaranteeing Presidential pardons to all of those who could be pressured into telling what they know about the Clintons’ crimes in order to save themselves. With the Republicans in charge, such a move would lead to impeachment: a delicious prospect indeed.

Jerome Zeifman, the Democrats’ chief counsel during the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, wrote in the Wall Street Journal recently that “there is now probable cause to consider our President and First Lady as felons, who are likely to be indicted after the November 5 election.” Zeifman should know what he’s writing about, but there’s one very big factor which makes the outcome he predicts much less likely than he suggests: the role of the Jew-controlled media. Although the Clintons have committed far more numerous and serious crimes than Nixon did, the mass media led the attack against Nixon, while they are now stonewalling for the Clintons.

If the controlled media would take even a neutral stance, Bill and Hillary would be led out of the White House in handcuffs and leg irons sometime in the summer of 1997. With the nearly unanimous support of the media, however, they may be able to hang on for two or three more years. That’s probably the better way, because two or three years of deepening scandal will have a more illuminating and salutary effect on the public than a quick and clean impeachment. When the Paula Jones case comes to trial, for example, it would provide a far less interesting spectacle if Clinton already were out of office and in prison.

One interesting twist to watch for is the fact that Jews will be in leading roles on both sides of the Clinton scandal: both pushing him in deeper and at the same time giving him just enough rope to keep his head above water. This is the sort of strategy the Jews often employ: keeping their tool so compromised that he dare not even think of breaking their grip on him and acting independently.

Unfortunately, there is one course of action which Clinton might take in order to distract the public’s attention from his problems and at the same time intimidate his Republican accusers into silence. It also is a course into which the Jews very well may lead him: a course into which they have led more than one Democratic President in the past. That is the course of war. While they have such a compliant tool at their disposal during the next four years, the Jews will be sorely tempted to use America’s armed forces to liquidate their opponents in the Middle East and permanently eliminate the threat to their hegemony there.

A natural question which arises in the minds of thoughtful Americans is: How long can this obscene parody of national life continue?

Not long. Of course, we still are far from having plumbed the bottom of human behavior in America. The depths of self-abasement to which guilt-ridden, Jehovah-fearing Christians are willing to let themselves be led by their Jewish mentors still are beneath us.

And no matter how unwholesome an effect on public life the homosexual and feminist elements already have had, what they would like to inflict on us is far worse.

The lockstep ideological conformity and the mindless parroting of Politically Correct clichés about equality, diversity, human dignity, and the like on our university campuses have reached a level of absurdity hardly matched by any historical example which comes to mind, but it still is possible, with a little effort, to imagine an even more Orwellian situation. And those who think that the manners, morals, and habits of speech and thought of young White people already have been corrupted as much as is possible by their exposure to MTV and their forced association with darker-hued primates in the schools should think again. The sort of depravity we are experiencing now could go on getting worse for quite some time.

The behavior of the people is not the only consideration, however. To state the matter in a few words, democracy has many serious and fundamental weaknesses, and only one strength. That one strength is its ability to express a rough sort of consensus in a more or less homogeneous society. People who themselves are not interested in becoming involved in the struggle for political power will opt for a democratic form of government, so long as it seems able to express this consensus and thus provide a guarantee against excessive encroachments on their own prerogatives by any faction which might have opposed interests.

When a society becomes so heterogeneous that the concept of consensus loses its meaning, however, or when factional forces–such as those which control the mass media–are able to distort the democratic process by manipulating public opinion and in effect creating an artificial consensus to suit themselves, then democracy loses its one redeeming quality, and those who had opted for it as a guarantee of their freedom will withdraw their support.

There is a certain inertia in such things as the loss of faith in, or the withdrawal of support from, a system of government. Even after objective conditions have reached the point where change is warranted, old habits will be maintained. The blather of pro-democracy propaganda generated by those factions whose interests are being served by a maintenance of the status quo retards change even more.

The public spectacle of a second Clinton administration, with all its wretched excess, is a necessary stimulus for change: it is a horrifying example of the absurd extreme which can be reached by a democracy become so pathological that it has lost all semblance of the original concept and all claim to the support of decent and reasonable men. Such men, no matter how deeply ingrained in them the habit of democracy, finally must be jolted to their senses by the public antics of the Clintonistas. They finally must accept the fact that the freedom they hoped to preserve is being destroyed by the very system originally intended to preserve it. They finally must understand that the system has become so degraded, so perverted, so radically estranged from them and their kind that further support of it is dishonorable and irresponsible.

When this understanding comes–not to the masses, of course, who never understand anything–but to most perceptive and honorable men, then the system will fall. When thinking people finally have assimilated the truth of what has happened to their government and the political system which chooses its officeholders, they will withdraw their support. We don’t yet know what it will take to complete that process of assimilation: perhaps a few more televised holocausts of dissident church congregations, courtesy of Janet Reno’s FBI; perhaps seeing Paula Jones on television testifying about Bill Clinton’s attempt to coerce her into providing sexual services to him when he was governor of Arkansas and she was a state employee; perhaps having a sitting President and his wife indicted on multiple felony charges. Perhaps it will take no more than a simple understanding of the fact that Bill Clinton won his second term with the support of just 23 per cent of the electorate, and among those who voted for him are almost no normal, decent, responsible, thinking White men, which means that by any reasonable definition of the word we no longer have a “representative” government.

The government will still have its armed forces and its secret police and its tax collectors and its commissars of bread and circuses and its horde of other office holders, but it no longer will be governing with the consent of the people: certainly not our people. How much chaos and bloodshed will ensue after that until the remnants of the structure have been brought down so that something new and clean can be built in its place remains to be seen, but the sooner it is done, the better for us and our posterity.

* * *

Source: National Vanguard Magazine — Number 117 (March-April 1997)

For Further Reading

Previous post

Where Did the Universe Come From?

Next post

Playing It Safe

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.