Classic EssaysWilliam Pierce

Democracy

bridge

by Dr. William L. Pierce

LET’S TALK about democracy today: about democracy as a system of government and its implications for our future. Democracy is a system where a country’s legislators and its top executives are chosen by a direct vote of the citizenry, more or less; I’m not concerned at the moment with such details as the electoral college. The basic fact is that nearly every citizen over 18 years of age has an equal vote, and the politician with the most votes is elected to office.

We also have a Constitution, of course, and the Constitution is supposed to constrain to a certain extent what these politicians can do after they’re elected. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t. We also have a system of Federal courts which are supposed to make sure that the politicians don’t deviate too far from the Constitution. But the judges on these courts are appointed by the politicians they’re supposed to keep an eye on.

Anyway, very roughly that’s the system we’ve had for the last 210 years or so. During that time America has grown and prospered enormously, and many people believe that it’s because of our system of government. They believe that if we had had some other system of government — monarchy, say, or a dictatorship — we wouldn’t have become so rich and powerful. Other people like to equate our system of government with freedom. If we didn’t have democracy we wouldn’t be free, they believe. In fact, the belief in the efficacy of democracy as a guarantor of wealth and freedom has become a religion in the United States. Politicians and preachers alike fear to question it. It is assumed not only to be the best possible system of government, but the only conceivable form of government for decent folk. No one in public life is permitted to doubt that dogma. The United States has gone to war and slaughtered millions of people in order to impose this religion on them. We have bombed our European cultural treasures into ruins and rained fire and high explosives from the sky onto White women and children in order to “make the world safe for democracy,” and we’ve done all of this with the same sort of self-righteousness and intolerant zeal with which we used to burn heretics 500 years ago — except that we’ve butchered a lot more White people for the sake of democracy than we ever did for the sake of Jesus or some particular brand of Christianity.

And so questioning democracy is not something that a prudent person does lightly. Nevertheless, many people have begun to have their doubts about democracy these days. Every time Mr. Clinton’s smiling mug appears on the TV screen, and people are reminded that it was the democratic process which put him at the head of our government, they are assailed by doubts about democracy. How could this have happened? they think. We always had faith in democracy, but now it has made a laughingstock of our government around the world. And there are other reasons for doubts as well — at least, on the part of the more observant and thoughtful portion of the population.

Take, for example, the media and government hullabaloo about the lynching of a Black ex-convict in Texas by three boozed-up White ex-convicts a few days ago. Lynching, of course, is a nasty business, and one can’t tolerate that sort of lawless, undisciplined behavior in a civilized society, even when it’s only a Black ex-convict who gets lynched. But watching the Clinton government and the controlled news media carry on about this particular lynching, one could not help but wonder, hey, when was the last time the government or the media made such a fuss about a Black-on-White crime?

I remember something which happened just seven months ago in New Jersey. A pretty, little, ten-year-old White girl, Lauren Relyea, was dragged into a vacant lot near her home in Piscataway, raped repeatedly, and then beaten and stabbed to death and her body mutilated: a truly horrible crime. The rapist and killer was a 24-year-old Black, and the affair was in the papers in New Jersey and New York for a day. Of course, national television ignored it, and so did Mr. Clinton, because the victim was only a little White girl, not a Black ex-convict.

Another crime which is currently in the news in Hawaii but nowhere else is the rape and murder of a White tourist in Hawaii by three native Hawaiians. The tourist was 23-year-old Dana Ireland, a lovely blonde girl, who was vacationing after graduating from college. The three Hawaiians were driving in a rural area near Kapoho, on the eastern edge of the island of Hawaii, when they saw Dana riding a bicycle. They swung their car around and deliberately struck her with it, knocking her off her bicycle and breaking her pelvis. They stuffed the badly injured girl into the trunk of their car, drove around for several hours smoking cocaine, then pulled off the road, dragged the girl out of the trunk, gang-raped her, and sexually tortured her. Finally, they beat her in the head with a tire-iron and left her to die. She still might have lived if the ambulance, also manned by Hawaiians, didn’t take 90 minutes after being called to reach her and then, another hour to reach the hospital. She died in the hospital later that day. Police found deep bite marks on her body, as well as numerous other injuries. One of the most shocking aspects of this atrocity is that it happened nearly seven years ago, on Christmas Eve 1991. The Hawaiians who raped and killed Dana were only arrested by the Hawaiian police and charged, after years of procrastination, because Dana’s parents would not let the matter rest. The trials of the Hawaiian killers are still being delayed. Prosecuting native Hawaiians for crimes against Whites is not politically popular in Hawaii. And it’s not politically popular in the White House either. In any event, Mr. Clinton has not been on television about the horrible crime against Dana Ireland the way he was about the recent lynching of a Black ex-convict in Texas.

You know, I could go on and on about this sort of thing. We all know that nearly all interracial crimes are committed by non-Whites against Whites, but the only interracial crimes our democratically elected government is interested in are the rare White-on-Black crimes. Whites are still a pretty substantial majority in America, but it is clear that the government they elected cares much more about its favored minorities than it does about the White majority. And it is clear that the government seizes on the rare White-on-Black crimes and uses them as excuses for pushing a program of racial mixing and racial brainwashing which is opposed by most Whites.

An even starker example of democracy gone haywire is provided by South Africa. I spoke two weeks ago about the systematic murder of White farm families in South Africa by Black gangs, and I mentioned that the Black South African government is unable or unwilling to cope with the situation. This is a government which the Whites of South Africa voted for, for all practical purposes, when they agreed in 1994 to let the Black majority vote. Prior to that only Whites could vote in South Africa, and they had a government which was able to keep Black crime under control and provide a high degree of security for White South Africans. But the Jewish media and the Christian churches and especially the democrats in the United States howled about how undemocratic it was not to let the Blacks in South Africa vote. And so finally the White South Africans proved to the world what good democrats they are by voting to let the Black majority vote in all future elections. And now they’re paying the price. You wouldn’t know that by reading the newspapers or watching television in the United States, of course. What we see here is Mr. and Mrs. Clinton talking on television about how much better things have gotten in South Africa since the country became more democratic in 1994.

I’ll tell you about another benefit of democracy in South Africa. It’s a very popular sport among the Blacks they call “jack rolling.” A Black gang will cordon off a whole block in a suburb of Johannesburg, so that no one can go either in or out, and then they will systematically gang-rape every woman and girl inside the cordon. They do this sort of thing in the Black townships of South Africa all the time, but now that the situation is much more democratic they are beginning to extend their sport to the White suburbs. Since 1994 the rape of White women by Blacks in South Africa has soared from almost nothing to the point where no White woman feels safe. Now a woman is raped by Blacks in South Africa every 83 seconds on the average — the highest per capita rate in the world — and the proportion of White women among those raped is continuing to increase. In the old South Africa, rape was a capital crime — a rapist could get the death penalty.

All too typical is what happened in the home of Leon and Gina Erasmus earlier this month. While they were sitting at dinner, armed Blacks burst into the house. They tied up Leon and made him watch while they gang-raped 18-year-old Gina, who was nine months pregnant. Also watching was Gina’s three-year-old niece. One of the Black rapists shouted to his friends, “Look, every time we do this it gets easier. These Whites are too scared to move.” The police in newly democratic South Africa have for all practical purposes given up trying to stop these rapes or catch the rapists.

The really unfortunate thing about what’s happening in South Africa is that Whites who voted against turning their country over to Blacks are just as likely to become rape or murder victims as are the trendy, democratic idiots who voted for it. But certainly all Whites in South Africa must have considerably less faith in democracy now than they did four years ago. They must be asking themselves, just as Americans do when we think about Bill Clinton in the White House: How did this happen to us? We were just being good democrats.

And America and South Africa are not the only places where White people are feeling that their faith in democracy was misplaced. When the communist system in the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, the Russian people were told that henceforth they would have democracy, and things would be much better for them. Well, with democracy things have gotten a great deal worse for the real Russians — although not for everyone living in Russia. There is genuine democracy in Russia today, just like we have in the United States. During the Russian presidential election in 1996 the Jews and Clintonistas in the United States, all of them rooting for Boris Yeltsin, really were worried that Yeltsin might not win. But Yeltsin did win, because the controlled media in Russia were backing him heavily, just as the controlled media in this country were backing Mr. Clinton. And, needless to say, the same tribe controls the media in Russia that controls the media in the United States — and in South Africa too, for that matter. One Jew in Russia, Boris Berezovsky, has boasted publicly that he and six other businessmen, all of them Jews, own or control half of the Russian economy. A good bit of their holdings are in the mass media.

After Yeltsin won his democratic election in 1996 he promptly appointed his principal media backer and financier, Boris Berezovsky to the post of deputy head of the National Security Council, which sets policy for Russia’s police and military. Berezovsky, incidentally, is the biggest of the organized crime bosses in Russia. When Russia made the switch from communism to democracy in 1991, most of what previously had belonged to the government — and that was nearly everything in Russia, including collective farms and factories and distribution networks and the mass media — was “privatized”: that is, it was sold piece by piece to private citizens. The rationale was that this would enable Russian entrepreneurs instead of the Kremlin to run the economy. Actually, very few Russians were involved in this transformation of the economy. Instead Soviet Jews inside the government arranged “sweetheart” deals with Soviet Jews in the private sector, and most of the choice properties ended up in Jewish hands at nominal prices. The Jews didn’t race to become private farmers, but they did race to become factory owners and store owners and television network owners.

Not surprisingly, many of the Jews who got in on this theft of the Russian economy already were involved in organized crime. The result is that today while Boris Yeltsin surveys Russia from an alcoholic haze in the Kremlin, surrounded by his Jewish cabinet ministers and his claque of Jewish media bosses, Russia continues to be plundered under its new democracy by the same people who plundered the country for more than 70 years under its old communism. Filthy-rich Jewish crime bosses and Jewish factory owners are driven in their chauffeured limousines to glitzy nightclubs in Moscow, while the Russian people try desperately to make ends meet. And more and more Russians, like Americans and South Africans, are asking themselves, how could this happen to us? We have a democracy!

And all that Americans hear about this is that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Russia, as if that phenomenon has nothing to do with the nature and behavior of the Jews in Russia themselves.

So what do these accounts of what is happening in America, South Africa, and Russia tell us about democracy? How is it that the United States, which became so strong and prosperous under democracy is now undergoing a process of self-destruction under that same democracy? How is it that our fellow Whites in South Africa and in Russia are having such catastrophic experiences with democracy?

A complete answer to these questions would take longer than we have time for on this program, so I’ll give you a simplified answer. The two principal reasons that democracy has turned against our people are, first, that the results a people obtains from a democracy depend on the quality of the electorate, and second, that the influence of the mass media on the democratic process has been overwhelming.

That first reason, which probably applies more strongly to democracy in the United States than anywhere else in the White world, simply tells us that we should expect a democracy to work better when we have a responsible, intelligent, moral, and racially conscious electorate than when we have an electorate of overweight couch potatoes, basketball fans, trendy airheads, and hymn-singing bigots. And certainly, the average quality of White voters in America has declined sharply from the time of the Founding Fathers to the present. Today we have a less manly and a much softer, more impressionable, vulgar, and irresponsible electorate than we had in the 19th century. And I’m talking only about White voters.

And the influence of the mass media on this more feminine, impressionable and irresponsible electorate — an influence which has become overwhelming in this century with the development first of radio and then of motion pictures and television — has made a mockery of the whole concept of democracy as a system of government by the mass of the people, who make their choices on the basis of their own innate values and attitudes. The masters of the mass media can and do manipulate the emotions and the opinions of the public on every issue of importance to themselves. They can and do set the political fashions of the day. They can and do form the image in the mind of the public of every candidate for public office.

Democracy in America today is no longer rule by the mass of the people; that is only the outward appearance of our system today. What we really have is an oligarchy, and the oligarchs are the people who own and control our mass media: the mass media, which by manipulating public opinion and the images of candidates, constrain the flow of public policy within boundaries chosen by their masters. And the really disastrous thing about this oligarchy is that the oligarchs are for the most part not even of our people but are of a people wholly alien to us.

The consequences of rule by this alien oligarchy, which hides behind the pretense of democracy, is that we have amoral and irresponsible political leaders, whose only concern is pleasing the oligarchs and thereby advancing their own careers. These are leaders like Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, and Frederick de Klerk, the last White president of South Africa, who deliberately betrayed his people into Black rule. They are politicians — really, more actors, more showmen, than statesmen — who are addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people and nations, but who have no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people they pretend to lead. With democratic politicians of this sort, obedient to the will of the hidden oligarchs of the media, White people have been led into two horribly destructive and fratricidal world wars in this century: wars which killed millions of the best people of our race, wars which led to the rise of communism and to its flourishing for more than 70 years, wars which weakened our race to the point that the oligarchs are now in the final stages of consolidating their domination of us in what they gloatingly refer to as their New World Order.

You know, if the modern world has become such that real democracy no longer is feasible, if we must be ruled by oligarchs, then let us do whatever we must do to insure, first, that those oligarchs are of our own people and not of an alien race, and second, that they are moral, responsible, and racially conscious men whose primary concern is the destiny of our race. And you know, we can have that.

* * *

Source: American Dissident Voices, June 1998

For Further Reading

Previous post

A White Workers' Movement: An Open Letter to Donald Trump, part 2

Next post

Told You So: India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan

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.