A Lesson in Democracy

Mass democracy creates an environment in which amoral psychopaths naturally rise to the top.

by Dr. William L. Pierce

SEYMOUR Hersh’s new book, The Price of Power, has everyone who hates Henry Kissinger’s guts — and that’s a lot of people — chortling gleefully over all of its revelations about the former Secretary of State’s duplicity.

For example, Kissinger (pictured, 1957) was dealing secretly with both sides in the 1968 presidential campaign, attempting to insure himself a governmental appointment by whichever candidate won.

He was giving Republican candidate Richard Nixon confidential information on the Vietnam War, which he was gathering by serving as a secret negotiator with North Vietnam for the incumbent Democratic administration. This information allowed Nixon to make knowledgeable campaign statements attacking the Democrats’ conduct of the war.

At the same time, however, the treacherous little Jew was in contact with officials of Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey’s campaign committee, Hersh says, offering to show them a secret file of derogatory information on Nixon. Kissinger had stolen the file from his previous employer, Nelson Rockefeller, who had been Nixon’s chief rival inside the Republican Party.

As the polls seesawed back and forth during the campaign, showing sometimes Humphrey and sometimes Nixon ahead, the intensity of Kissinger’s secret negotiations with one side or the other would wax or wane accordingly.

Well, all of that is interesting, but does it really tell us anything new? During Kissinger’s years of power, while the controlled media were promoting him as a statesman of unparalleled genius and there was talk in the Congress of introducing a Constitutional amendment which would make it possible for the foreign-born “refugee from Hitler” to become President, his antics in the White House gang’s infighting remained a favorite topic of conversation at Washington cocktail parties. The anecdotes about his amorality, his double-dealing, his arrogance, and his mendacity were legion. Hersh’s book won’t change any estimates of Kissinger in Washington, although it might open a few eyes out in Kansas — if the folks in Kansas were in the habit of reading books.

The real lesson that the voters in Kansas might learn from The Price of Power (but won’t) is not about Henry Kissinger, or even about the evil influence of Jews in the government (Seymour Hersh is a Jew himself), but about democracy. Kissinger might have been pushier — and, with his thick accent and awkward manners, more noticeable in his pushiness — than the other men in Washington trying to elbow their ways to the choicest positions at the public trough, but his ethics are not basically different from theirs. Except that Kissinger, as a Jew, has a racial consciousness and a sense of racial purpose which the Gentiles lack, they are all brothers under the skin. There are a common mind-set and a common value system among a growing majority of them: a mind-set and a value system alien to most of the folks in Kansas — and in every other state as well.

We have a government of lawyers, of men who do not lack intelligence — and certainly not ambition — but who in many cases are virtually mattoids, devoid of any sense of right and wrong. They understand, of course, what the words “right” and “wrong” mean to their constituents, just as they understand such words as “truth,” “honor,” “duty,” “loyalty,” and “responsibility.” But they understand them in the way that a lawyer understands words. That is, they understand the effects these words have on ordinary people when used in various contexts. And they make a point of using such words frequently, as tools for manipulating their listeners. But the values associated with the words have no intrinsic meaning for the speakers; they are entirely externalized.

National Vanguard readers often ask rather naive questions about various of America’s leading politicians, in an effort to understand their behavior. A common question is, “Does Congressman So-and-so know the ‘score’ on the Jews?” The questioner believes that the reason So-and-so, who otherwise makes a great show of his fervent patriotism, is so thick with the Jews is that he has never been informed about Zionism and the claim it makes on the loyalty of all Jews.

Or a reader may admit to being baffled by a White, Gentile senator who puts himself forward as a champion of human rights and expresses eloquent outrage on the Senate floor at the treatment of Blacks in South Africa — and then rushes off to the Israeli Embassy to attend a testimonial dinner for the bloody-handed murderers of Palestinians women and children in Lebanon.

Such readers make the mistake of assuming that the politicians’ minds work the same way theirs do. They imagine that Congressman So-and-so actually feels a sense of loyalty to America and would, therefore, be alarmed if he understood that a Jew’s loyalty is only to his fellow Jews; that the senator is actually outraged about apartheid and should, therefore, also be outraged about Israeli genocide.

But such considerations are entirely foreign to the men who govern America. To them “loyalty” is only a word, a tool. Outrage is just an act which is useful for some occasions. The congressman finds it helpful at election time to appear patriotic. He also finds it helpful all the time to stay on the right side of the Jews.

The senator has found that a burst of “outrage” against South Africa will always win him plaudits in the controlled media. But the fact is that he doesn’t really care any more about Blacks than he does about Palestinians.

What matters to America’s lawyer-politicians and lawyer-bureaucrats is advantage. Every conscious decision is made on the basis of personal advantage or disadvantage, nothing else. And every successful politician or bureaucrat understands that there is a substantial advantage to him in not letting the folks in Kansas know that that’s how he makes his decisions. So he expends a fair amount of energy trying to convince them otherwise.

There have always been such people in the population. Perhaps they are genetically flawed, or perhaps their condition is largely a consequence of unnatural upbringing. In either case, normal people generally try to spot them and steer clear of them. But the smoother they are, the harder it is to spot them.

In the past, however, there were usually a few people in each community with a keen enough sense of discrimination so that they could spot all but the very smoothest mattoids. And because men of discrimination were more likely to be in positions of leadership than their less-discriminating fellows, the former could use their authority to protect the latter.

Mass democracy has changed all of that radically. It has given the born sucker — the pliable, foolish, short-sighted, gullible Mr. Everyman — exactly the same electoral power as the wisest and most discerning judge of character in the land. It has also interposed the controlled mass media between the electors and the elected. The man who, if he were obliged to deal with his constituents face-to-face, would be shunned instinctively, or even ridden out of town on the sharp edge of a rail, can, through the magic of television, appear statesmanlike.

The consequence of this environmental change has been to give a survival advantage to the mattoids. The man with a sense of personal honor, of responsibility to the future, or of racial loyalty is carrying excess baggage which will only slow him down in Washington, DC. Commitment to principles will only tie his hands and put him at a disadvantage relative to the man who can fake it convincingly and is ready to change his act whenever shifting public opinion or the needs of pressure-group politics demand it.

In short, America’s government is becoming more and more democratic. Henry Kissinger had a lot of company when he was double-dealing in Washington a decade ago. But if he were to come back now he would have a lot more.

* * *

Source: National Vanguard magazine, No. 95, June 1983, pp. 2–4; transcribed by Anthony Collins