Patriot’s (Only) Choice: White Revolution
by Dr. William L. Pierce
WHEN I SPEAK with or correspond with people from various parts of the United States the issue on which everyone seems to agree is immigration. Everyone has his own horror story about what the influx of non-White immigrants has done to the community in which he lives or to his workplace. People I know who work in Silicon Valley as highly skilled professionals complain to me about the enormous influx of Asians, who are taking away their jobs: Asians from India in particular. People in the health-care professions and in the academy also complain about Asians. Ninety per cent of the interns in many hospitals are Vietnamese or Chinese or Pakistani. University faculties are being filled with Asians, leaving fewer and fewer opportunities for White American scholars to have academic careers.
At the other end of the socioeconomic scale, mestizos from Mexico and other parts of Central and South America, are taking over virtually all of the minimum-wage jobs in the construction trades and landscaping, in poultry processing plants, in cleaning, in food service, and in many other areas where unskilled labor is required. There are large parts of the United States where there are no White motel or hotel workers to be seen, except perhaps at the registration desk, and no White waiters or waitresses, and no Whites in the kitchen.
The public schools in these parts of the country hit hard by non-White immigration have become disaster areas, with White children outnumbered by Browns and Yellows, and Blacks. Neighborhoods, even whole towns, which used to be entirely White — and clean, safe, quiet, and decent — have become almost entirely non-White in the past two decades.
No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation; most are angry, and some of them are quite angry. Of course, I don’t speak with everyone in the country. I don’t talk with the Christian ministers who preach that we all are God’s children and therefore shouldn’t object to sharing our land, our schools, and our incomes with our non-White brothers and sisters. I don’t correspond with the owners of the poultry-processing plants, who complain that Whites aren’t willing to do the hard, smelly work in their plants at a reasonable wage, and so they bring in non-Whites who are happy to have the work. And I have no dealings with either the Democratic Party bosses who want more non-Whites coming into the country because nearly all of them will vote Democrat or with the Republican big businessmen who welcome more non-White immigration because it keeps the cost of labor down.
But I do speak with enough people that I am quite certain that the great majority of White Americans would like to see an end to the flood of non-Whites pouring across our borders. And I’m including in that White majority even the Politically Correct soccer moms and yuppies, because in the privacy of the voting booth even they would vote to end the flood. Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of Democratic voters, who are substantially less White than Republicans, would vote to stop non-White immigration.
But of course, the voters aren’t given a chance to express their feelings on non-White immigration or on many other sensitive issues. That’s strange, isn’t it? The conventional wisdom is that politicians seek votes and will champion any cause they believe will win them votes. Why is it that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are given a chance to vote their feelings on the immigration issue? It might be understandable that the Democratic Party would want to steer clear of that issue, considering it divisive. Even though a platform calling for an end to non-White immigration — or even to all immigration — would be popular among the Democratic Party’s White voters, it might be much less popular among the large number of non-White Democratic voters. But Republican voters, who are overwhelmingly White, certainly would favor a halt to non-White immigration. Why then is George Bush at least as strongly in favor of open borders as Bill Clinton was? Why does he resist enforcing the immigration laws we already have as strongly as any Democrat, when that’s certainly not what the majority of the people who voted for him want?
It’s an interesting question, and its examination helps us to understand better the way our system of government works in America. There’s a lot of baloney in the air about “the will of the people” and similar foolishness. Most people have a foggy sort of notion that the country is governed by “the people” through their elected representatives — and in a sense I suppose that’s true, except that “the people” are not the citizens enfranchised by the Constitution, and it would be more accurate to describe the politicians through whom they govern as “bought” representatives. What the people who actually govern have learned is that the voters, who only imagine that they are the ones who govern, are very easily manipulated.
When election time rolls around, if the question of immigration is a key issue — if one of the candidates pledges to keep America’s borders open and to welcome with open arms everyone who comes across those borders, legally or illegally, and the other candidate pledges to use the U.S. Army to seal the borders and completely stop the flow of illegal aliens — so that the voters really have a choice, then we might correctly say that the voters govern. But of course, the voters are not given such a choice. The bought politicians who are candidates do not offer the voters a choice on the issues that are really important. Instead they offer various schemes for reducing the cost of prescription drugs for senior citizens or for handing out school vouchers or for implementing some other government welfare program.
They distract the voters with unimportant issues. And most of the voters are very easily distracted. For months before a major election the voters are saturated with trivia from their television screens. Unimportant issues are held up as important, and opinion polls on these issues are presented every day. How many people favor school vouchers, and how many are against? How many people favor changing the limits on the size of campaign contributions? Should violent video games for children be restricted? But never the question: Should the government seal the borders and round up and deport illegal aliens?
It’s interesting that no candidate will take such a position, even though it would be a very popular one and would win him many votes. It suggests that there are forces at work other than “the will of the people.”
In some states so-called “popular initiatives” are part of the election process. If an organized group of voters can gather enough signatures they can put certain issues on the ballot regardless of the politicians. They may even put a Politically Incorrect proposition on the ballot, if the public feels strongly enough about it to overcome the television propaganda against it.
That has happened. In California, in 1994, White citizens concerned about the swamping of their state by illegal aliens from Mexico, put a very mild popular initiative on the ballot — Proposition 187 — which would restrict certain government-provided benefits to illegal aliens. Despite a flood of television propaganda describing the initiative as “racist” and despite violent and threatening demonstrations against it by Mexicans already in California, the initiative was approved by the voters. Then a Jewish Federal judge stepped in and nullified the will of the voters by declaring the initiative un-Constitutional and unenforceable. The White voters of California were too late with too little resistance, and the Brown tidal wave that they had tried far too feebly to stop swept over them and submerged them anyway just a few years later.
In most parts of the country, White citizens aren’t even given an opportunity to try to stop the alien takeover and destruction of their society. Immigration, of course, isn’t the only really important issue on which most voters aren’t given a choice. It’s just one I chose because most White voters agree on it, and the fact that they aren’t permitted to vote on it provides an especially strong bit of evidence that the notion that the country is governed by the will of its voters is not valid.
Other really important issues never are even formulated clearly enough for the public to have an opinion on them. The question of national autonomy is a good example. If the voters were asked clearly: Do you believe that the United States should maintain its autonomy, that it should preserve its separate existence as a nation, that it should safeguard all of those resources which enable it to act independently in its national interest? — if the voters were asked that question, I have no doubt that the majority would respond affirmatively. But of course, the voters aren’t asked that question. The candidates don’t ask it, and neither do the controlled media. The trivial issues presented to the people to keep them from thinking about the issues of autonomy and sovereignty are things such as: Isn’t it nice that the government’s free-trade policies have made it possible for us buy plastic hair curlers made in China for so much less than they used to cost us?
The fact that so-called “free trade” has driven into bankruptcy American industries essential to our national autonomy and is continuing to damage other vital industries is never discussed by the candidates or by the media. Mr. Bush pursues free trade as enthusiastically as Mr. Clinton did.
We understand, of course, that there are people in America who believe that national autonomy and national sovereignty are bad things — at least, bad for Americans — and who want to do away with them. They want White Americans to be dependent on Black and Brown and Yellow people in other parts of the world. They want America’s wealth to be redistributed to the poorer nations of the world. They want American citizens to be subject to international tribunals. They want our national defense to be in the hands of international military forces. They don’t want us to have the ability to act independently: militarily, economically, or in any other way.
They are the globalists. They constitute only a small minority of the White population of America. They never could have their way — they never could impose their policies on the rest of us — if they appealed to “the will of the people.” But they don’t need “the will of the people” because they have the Jewish mass media on their side. Because the Jewish media are behind them, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party favor globalist policies, and no major candidate, no Democratic or Republican politician, dares to ask the voters whether or not they really want to abolish America’s borders, do away with America’s autonomy, scrap America’s sovereignty. And so the voters never have a choice in the matter. The insiders simply do what they want behind the scenes, and no one asks any embarrassing questions, because the controlled mass media are on their side.
One more example of a vitally important issue on which the people, the voters, are not given a choice, is the issue of Israel. American voters never are asked: Do you believe that America should support — diplomatically, militarily, and financially — a foreign country which approves of and engages in the police torture of prisoners during interrogations, which approves of and engages in the collective punishment of families or even whole communities when a single member of a family or a community breaks the law, and which approves of and engages in state-sponsored terrorism on an international scale? Most American voters would emphatically reject such support, but they are never given the choice.
And the reason they never are given the choice of whether to support Israel is exactly the same reason they are never given a choice on immigration or on national sovereignty. The insiders, the Rhodes scholars and the other deracinated, conscienceless elitists operating behind the scenes with the support of the Jewish media bosses, reserve the truly important choices for themselves. They let the voters occupy themselves with school vouchers and Medicare prescriptions and the pros and cons of violent video games. But we never are asked whether or not our nation should be permitted to continue its independent existence or what the nature and makeup of its population should be in the future. The globalists already know what they want, and they don’t want our opinion on the matter or our interference in their pursuit of their goals.
The point of everything I’m telling you today is this: White Americans who insist on operating according to the old rules, of letting themselves be governed by the current system based on party politics and elections, are playing a loser’s game. By adhering to and supporting this system they are betraying their nation and their race. The system already has been taken over by the sworn enemies of their nation and their race. To support the system, to collaborate with the system is to be a traitor to one’s people. It is to betray the ideal of self-government established on this continent by our forefathers.
That, I know, is a hard conclusion for most patriots to accept. They respect the hallowed institutions of their nation. They like to do things in the accepted way, the traditional way. It goes against their grain to challenge established authority or to break the law in any way. They just aren’t emotionally or psychologically equipped to combat the sort of subversion that has overtaken us. And I’m talking now about the patriots who aren’t lemmings; I’m talking about the ones who are still capable of independent thought, still capable of examining the evidence and reaching their own conclusions. It’s very difficult for them to accept the fact that the deadliest enemies of their nation and their people have subverted and taken over the institutions by which their people have governed themselves. But, difficult to accept or not, it has happened.
I’ll go a step further: Even if there had not been a conscious, deliberate, and successful attempt to subvert our institutions and take over our government — even if we did not have these deadly enemies in our midst determined to use our own governmental institutions to destroy us — the old rules still would be invalid. In ancient Greece, perhaps — in medieval Iceland, perhaps — with the electors comprising a carefully defined subset of a population of substantially higher quality than we have in the United States today, mass democracy may have been a viable choice. In the age of television it is not.
Most of the members of every viable society are and always have been what I call lemmings. Lemmings do not make up their minds independently. They are psychologically incapable of doing that. Instead, they look around them and try to understand what other people are thinking: their peers and their authority figures. And then that’s what they think. They think whatever they perceive to be accepted by those around them. They conform their own opinions and behavior to the opinions and behavior of others. That’s one thing to know in a traditional society, where the norms observed and accepted by the lemmings are real norms: where the lemmings are conforming themselves to the real people around them, where they are conforming themselves to the fellow members of their own community and by so doing are giving stability and strength to the community.
In the television age it’s something altogether different. In the television age the virtual community of the television screen increasingly replaces the real community, the natural community, in determining what the lemmings conform themselves to. It’s what the lemmings perceive which is important, and the people who control what appears on their television screens determine to an increasing degree what the lemmings perceive. This fact of life nullifies the validity of the democratic idea even when there is no evil intent. In other words, even if the masters of the mass media of news and entertainment were benevolent, the power in their hands would be sufficient to change “the will of the people” to whatever the media masters wanted it to be, and the whole concept of mass democracy would be meaningless. And with Jews controlling the media, democracy is not only a fraud; it is an unmitigated disaster carrying our society, our civilization, and our race toward final oblivion.
So what is a patriot to do? Should he ignore all the evidence of an enemy takeover and continue supporting the current system? And again, I’m talking only about those patriots who do notice the evidence. Do you remember what I told you about the mayor of Cincinnati and the other White politicians there and the treacherous way they behaved after the recent Black riot in Cincinnati? Earlier this week — on Monday — the first “hate crime” indictment stemming from that riot was filed. Who do you think was indicted? Do you think maybe it was one of the Black rioters: perhaps one of those who pulled a White woman from her car and beat her to a pulp? If that’s what you think, you are dead wrong. The first and so far the only person to be indicted for a “hate crime” during the riot is a White man who fought back against the Blacks: a White man who was angered by what he saw the Blacks doing and decided not to just stand there and watch them destroy his city. He is 20-year-old Craig Carr. He picked up a brick, threw it at a Black, and expressed his feelings about Blacks generally. And the local White politicians and bureaucrats saw their opportunity to deflect charges of “racial profiling” against themselves based on the fact that nearly all of the people who had been arrested during the riot are Black. They would file the most serious charges against a White man. That should please the media bosses!
Should an observant patriot simply ignore that sort of behavior and continue supporting the system? Should a patriot continue to respect the old rules simply because the system is continuing to follow them: at least, in outward form?
That’s what the White politicians and the White bureaucrats are doing: the White mayors and prosecutors and judges, and not just in Cincinnati, but everywhere. They are ignoring the evidence and continuing to follow the old rules because they know which side their bread is buttered on, and that’s all that matters to them. Along with the system, they have become corrupt. Black rioters and illegal aliens and the Jews controlling the media are not their enemies. To them the White man who fights back is the enemy. To them the observant patriot who chooses to be a real patriot is the enemy. To them I am the enemy — and of that I am proud.
I know that they would like to lock me up and silence me. And believe me, there is nothing better that I would like to do to them than make them dance on air with their hands tied behind their backs: all of them.
So again, what is a patriot to do? How is he to reconcile his instinctive respect for the old forms and institutions with the present reality? What is the solution?
Well, I’ll tell you. I’ll tell all of you patriots trying to make a choice: White revolution is the only solution.
Original title: Patriot’s Choice
Free Speech – May 2001 – Volume VII, No. 5
* * *
Source: National Vanguard