Slavery and Race
by Dr. William L. Pierce
I HAVE BEFORE me a news story which appeared in the London Daily Telegraph a few days ago. It’s a story about the flourishing child-slavery business in West Africa: in countries like Nigeria, Togo, Benin, and Gabon. Businessmen in the coastal cities send buyers into the interior with buses, where they collect surplus children, in the seven- to 15-year-old age range, and bring them back in groups of 50 to 100 — in other words, a bus load — to the slave markets on the coast. Typically the buyers pay parents anywhere from 10 to 30 dollars per child. In some areas, they simply bribe local officials to look the other way and kidnap the children.
Once in the coastal cities, the children are housed in large, supermarket-style buildings where shoppers can stroll through, select the children they want to buy, and pay for their merchandise at the door as they leave. Some of the purchasers send the children out on the streets to work as prostitutes. Others use them as house servants or as factory workers.
This is not a small-time thing or an occasional thing. This is a thriving business involving thousands of children bought and sold every year in dozens of slave markets in West African cities, in the region which used to be known as the “slave coast,” because that’s where the slave dealers, during the 18th and early 19th centuries, would buy ship loads of slaves to take to the West Indies and the Americas for plantation work. After slavery was outlawed in Europe and America, it continued as an ongoing institution in Africa, just as it had for countless centuries before White men began buying African slaves.
The only reason Europeans and White Americans ever hear anything about this ongoing African slave trade is that there are a few tender-hearted White groups, such as Amnesty International and Anti-Slavery International, whose sensibilities are offended by this sort of thing. These groups try to arouse public opinion in America and Europe against slavery. They also work through politicians, trying to persuade them to put anti-slavery amendments into aid agreements with African countries. As a result of such aid-agreement amendments most African countries recently have gone through the motions of enacting legislation outlawing slavery. All this means in practice is that the slave dealers must pay bribes to the politicians or the police in order to avoid interference with their business.
Now, the news story I mentioned, in the Daily Telegraph, appeared because the London-based group Anti-Slavery International has just released a report detailing the latest facts and figures for child slavery in West Africa. Do you wonder why you don’t see more news about the slave trade? Do you wonder why the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the major television news networks have virtually nothing to say about it? Can you imagine the outrage you would see in these controlled media, day after day and week after week, if White people were behind this trade in Black children?
Of course, you can! But news about Blacks in Africa, behaving the way Blacks always have behaved, whether it is buying and selling child slaves in Nigeria or engaging in ritual cannibalism in Liberia or “necklacing” accused witches in South Africa, is news which doesn’t fit and is therefore deemed not newsworthy by the masters of the controlled media. In fact, the media masters consider such news positively harmful, because it conflicts with the image they have built in the minds of the White public: an image of virtuous, peaceable, freedom-loving, industrious, sensitive, and creative Blacks, essentially noble Blacks, who have failed to rise to the cultural level of Europe and America only because they have been enslaved and exploited by cruel, greedy White supremacists. It’s important to maintain this deceptive image, because it reinforces the sense of White racial guilt; it helps keep Whites convinced that they owe something to non-Whites, that they must never think of their own racial interests or feel any sense of White racial solidarity, because that can only lead to terrible things like slavery and the oppression of noble Blacks.
Actually, the media masters have quite different reasons for wanting to keep White thinking about racial matters confused. If Whites ever begin thinking racially, ever begin thinking in terms of their collective racial interests — the way the media masters do — they will be much more difficult to control — and the media masters themselves will be in grave danger. So that’s why we hear and see so much in the media about the evils of White racism, and the need for the government to crack down on what the media bosses call “hate,” and the importance of giving the poor Blacks a few special advantages like affirmative action to make up for the way we mistreated them in the past — and, ahem, the correctness of pressuring the Swiss people into coughing up as much gold as another poor, oppressed minority group demands. And it’s also why we almost never see or hear anything about Black slavery in Africa today — and, more generally, about what all of these wonderful minorities with which we are blessed are actually like and the way in which they really behave when left to themselves.
I’ve done a lot of thinking about this problem of the Jewish control of our news and entertainment media, and I’ve probably talked more about it on these American Dissident Voices broadcasts than any other problem we’re facing as a people. That’s because it’s the most important problem we’re facing. It’s the key to all of our other problems. It’s the one problem we must overcome if our people are to survive.
Let’s look today at a couple of aspects of this problem of Jewish media control that I haven’t discussed much in the past. What I have discussed often before is the fact that most people aren’t really rational in the formation of their opinions and attitudes. They don’t believe what makes the most sense. They don’t believe what they see the best evidence for. They believe what is fashionable. They believe whatever they think other people believe. And so the task of the mass media is not primarily to present either factual or contrived evidence for a particular point of view they want the public to adopt; instead it is simply to convince the public that this point of view is fashionable: that it is the point of view most other people already have. And the media do this convincing primarily with advertising and with entertainment: they show fashionable actors expressing the opinions they want the viewers to adopt. Sometimes they use news for the same purpose: they’ll sample the reactions of people on the street to some event in the news and then select those reactions for broadcast or publication which match the reaction they want the public to have. But the main task of the news media is to screen out facts which don’t fit and present only those facts which seem compatible with the opinions the media are promoting.
And that technique works quite well with most people. But there are many White Americans who are able to think for themselves, who are able to entertain even unfashionable ideas, if that’s where the evidence points. Why don’t we hear more of these Americans speaking out? Why do so many of them just go along with the falsehoods and deceptions of the controlled media?
I believe that a full answer to this question has three parts. In the first place, these people able to think for themselves tend to be more successful economically and socially than the average, because they’re smarter than the average. They tend to belong to the upper strata of our society, strata whose inhabitants are cushioned against many of the harsher realities of what is happening to our society — and who live in an environment where politeness is especially valued. They don’t want to be rude. They don’t want to be offensive. To point out too loudly the inadequacies of Blacks would be considered a bit déclassé.
In the second place many Whites believe that we should preserve the peace at all costs. They place a very high value on maintaining social tranquillity. They know how easily some minorities take offense and how violent and destructive they can become. They know that if a White policeman has to tap a Black with his nightstick during an arrest, his fellow Blacks may stage a three-day riot and burn the whole town to the ground. And so these peace-loving folks are inclined to tread very softly and leave their nightsticks at home. They’d rather see us White rabble-rousers restrained than give us an opportunity to stir up trouble. After all, they think, as bad as the racial situation is, we have to learn to live with it. We may not like it, but there’s nothing we can do about it — nothing, that is, except things that inevitably would entail a great deal of conflict, violence, and bloodshed, and that’s just too terrible to contemplate. Our people, unfortunately, have lost a lot of their stomach for that sort of thing over the past couple of hundred years.
And, as I said, these are folks who already have a reasonable understanding of the facts. They’re not taken in by any egalitarian myths. With them it’s a problem of values, of priorities. Keeping the peace and avoiding violence is the most important thing to them. About the only way you can persuade them to take a stand for their people is convince them by demonstration that Blacks are not the only ones who can raise hell, and that simply being polite will not permit them to escape unscathed and avoid violence to their own persons.
Finally, I believe that for many independent-minded people the problem is not being able to see the forest for the trees. What they see is that there are many individual Blacks who are intelligent, there are many moral Blacks, many industrious and self-disciplined Blacks, many individual Blacks who are able to adapt quite successfully and even constructively to a civilized, European society. And they also see that there are many White people who are stupid, lazy, immoral, and undisciplined and are a burden on our society. These independent-minded people are focused on individual Blacks and individual Whites, and the conclusion they reach is that there are some good and useful people of all races in our society and some bad and useless people of all races.
What these independent-minded people fail to do is back off a bit and look at races as a whole. What they fail to understand is that the problem we must deal with is not the quality of the individual Negro who is living next door, or even the effect that minorities are having on our neighborhood. The problem is what Blacks as a race — or what non-Whites generally — are doing to our society and to our race by living among us. And it is quite clear, indisputably clear, that what they are doing as a race, as a whole, is not good. They are destroying our society and our race. That’s the problem we must deal with, and all considerations of individuals become wholly insignificant in comparison.
Now, I know that’s hard for some people to grasp. I know that it took me a while to get my own thinking straightened out. I began life more or less as a libertarian, and my primary concern was that the government not mess with me personally — and more generally that people be permitted to do whatever they want to do as individuals. I didn’t think much about the cumulative effects of individual actions and individual qualities on the society in which I was living. But as these cumulative effects began being really noticeable in the 1960s, I had to start thinking about them. I believe that all of us need to think about them.
We need to understand that every race encompasses individuals with a range of characteristics, with each characteristic distributed about some average value in a more or less bell-shaped curve. When we want to think about the effects of mixing two races together in a society, it is these average values we must consider, not individuals. For example, there are smart Blacks and stupid Whites — a lot more of the latter these days than in the past, it seems — but the average intelligence for Blacks in the United States is between 15 and 20 IQ points below the average for Whites. That’s more than enough to make the difference between being able to sustain a modern, civilized society and not being able to keep it from sliding back into the jungle, the way every Black country in Africa for which Whites built a civilized infrastructure began sliding back into the jungle as soon as the Whites relinquished control to the Blacks during the decolonization period after the Second World War. More than that, the rare individuals who have the special abilities required to build a civilization, not just sustain one, are way out on the high side of the bell curve — far enough out, in fact, that the Black bell curve has for all practical purposes gone to zero. Which is to say that if on the White bell curve for an average population of one million Whites there are 100 who qualify as civilization builders, as true innovators, then on a bell curve for one million Blacks the number of individuals who qualify as civilization builders is somewhere between zero and one.
These are the things that people who are able to think for themselves need to consider. They need to consider the overall effects of allowing large numbers of Blacks and other non-Whites to live among us. They need to consider the ultimate consequences of such a policy. They need to realize that as races with lower standards of performance than ours mix with us, they inevitably will pull down the overall standards for our society. Eventually they will pull us down to the level where we cannot compete effectively with other societies which have maintained their own standards.
Our independent-minded people need to think clearly about the ways in which our society already has been degraded by permitting larger and larger numbers of non-Whites to live among us. They need to look at our school problem and our crime problem and our drug problem and to understand that these are consequences of our failing to maintain a White society, and that we are suffering these consequences regardless of the fact that there are many individual Blacks who cannot be blamed for these problems. They need to understand that it is Blacks collectively, Blacks as a race, who are pulling our society down.
Our people also need to understand the true motivations of the media bosses when they respond to these problems by trying to obscure the problems and confuse us about them: for example, by campaigning against IQ testing — or any testing of people which distinguishes them or ranks them according to ability and thereby reveals the fact of racial inequality — and at the same time by trying to convince us that there is some mysterious benefit to be gained by having more racial diversity in our society; when they deliberately try to make us feel a sense of racial guilt by blaming Black slavery on Whites; when they deliberately use their media to encourage miscegenation; and finally, when they make the claim that there really is no such thing as race, that the whole concept of race is meaningless. Yes, we need to understand what these Jewish media bosses are up to. We need to understand the overall consequences to our people of permitting them to live among us.
Finally, let me leave you with this thought. If the idea of inferiority and superiority bothers you, if you don’t like the idea of categorizing Black society in Nigeria or Uganda, with its enduring institution of slavery, as inferior to White society, just think of it as different. And just realize that when people from a different race are mixed with ours, we will become different. We will lose our racial distinctness, our very ability to think of ourselves as a race. That is why I am opposed not only to the presence of Blacks and Jews in our society, but even to the large-scale presence of races I respect, such as the Japanese. Mixing leads to the loss of distinctness, to the loss of identity. And the loss of identity leads inevitably to death.
Think about it.
* * *
Source: American Dissident Voices broadcast, October 1997