Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page

Free Speech - September 2001 - Volume VII, Number 9

To Be, or To Be Nice

by Dr. William Pierce

Have you been paying attention to what's happening in Rhodesia and South Africa in recent weeks? Certainly not, if your only sources of news are the controlled news media, such as CNN or the network television news programs. They've been far too busy giving you interviews with Chandra Levy's parents.

Of course, I have reported to you from time to time on the situations in Rhodesia, now officially known as "Zimbabwe," and in South Africa. It is depressing to me to talk about these things. It is depressing to me to see the predictions that I made long ago coming true. And it has been even more depressing than usual recently as the deterioration of conditions in those countries has accelerated, as the ultimate horror that I predicted has become visible.

Two weeks ago, we talked about the growing phenomenon of the gang rape of White women by Blacks in South Africa. It has been a little over a year, however, since we talked about the seizure and looting of White farms in Rhodesia and the killing of White farm families there by mobs of Blacks. President for Life Robert Mugabe wanted to enhance his popularity among his followers by taking land away from White farmers and giving it to Blacks. When he began this activity Mugabe had to use a certain degree of caution for two reasons. First, virtually all the agricultural product of Rhodesia came from the White farms; Blacks engaged only in subsistence farming, and White farms that were turned over to Blacks essentially went out of production, weakening the country's economy. Second, a substantial portion of White Rhodesians were British citizens, and the British government was protesting the dispossession and mistreatment of its citizens.

It soon became clear to Mugabe, however, that the British government of Prime Minister Tony Blair really didn't care what happened to Rhodesia's Whites and that the government's protests were merely empty words. Furthermore, as the Rhodesian economy, badly damaged by the earlier seizures of White farms, sank further toward chaos, jobless Blacks clamored for even more White land. A government of reasonable men might have salvaged the Rhodesian economy by a combination of austerity measures and strict law enforcement, but that is not the African way. The African way -- more generally, the Black way is to kill the goose and get all the golden eggs now. So Mugabe, in order to maintain his popularity, has continued to let the mobs of jobless Blacks seize White farms and despoil them.

The process is now spiraling out of control. Last week a group of White farmers fought their way through a mob of squatters who were attacking a White farm. They rescued the besieged White farmer, but they injured a number of the Black squatters while doing it. The Mugabe government in turn arrested 23 of the White farmers who had been involved in the rescue, denied them bond, and threw them into prison in chains, where they now are at the tender mercies of Black jailers.

It is mid-winter in Rhodesia, and the unheated prison cells where the White farmers are being held are freezing. When three jailers in the prison responded to a request from the Whites for blankets, Mugabe promptly had the jailers themselves arrested. The Whites are not to be "coddled," he announced, sending a clear message to the other jailers and to policemen that Whites could be abused with impunity. Mugabe has, in effect, declared all White Rhodesians to be outlaws. Blacks may attack them and steal their property, and they may not attempt to protect themselves. In order to make things perfectly clear, last Saturday Mugabe's second-in-command, Vice President Joseph Msika, announced: "Whites are not human beings." In the past year only nine White farmers have been murdered by Blacks during the seizures of White farms, but the death toll is now certain to increase rapidly.

Also last Saturday, Mugabe steeply increased his goal for the dispossession of Whites when he revealed a new plan calling for 95 per cent of all White farmland in Rhodesia to be turned over to Blacks. That, on top of the imprisonment of the 23 White farmers, caused a mass exodus of White families from farms in the area of northern Rhodesia where mobs of Black squatters have been most active recently. Three hundred women and children were evacuated from 130 White farms over the weekend, and more than 60 of those farms already have been invaded and ransacked by squatters, who routinely slaughter all pet cats and dogs left behind, carry off everything of value, even ripping out bathtubs and other plumbing fixtures, and destroy the rest. White evacuees in the town of Chinhoyi were attacked on the streets by Blacks, and White women who attempted to take food and warm clothing to their imprisoned husbands were beaten outside the prison.

And the controlled media here are silent. The politicians are silent. The Christian ministers, who used to preach crusades against Rhodesia when it was a White country, are silent. The various bleeding-heart types, who are terribly distressed over what AIDS is doing to the Black population of Africa and always are running around organizing international conferences and lobbying the government to provide more medical assistance to AIDS-stricken Blacks, are silent.

The media bosses are silent because they are happy with the present situation. This is the way they planned it. The politicians and most of the rest are silent because they really don't care. Those who are a little uncomfortable about the stepped-up genocide being waged against Whites in Rhodesia are afraid to say anything lest they be accused of "White racism." Everyone with any sense at all of Political Correctness understands that any expression of concern or sympathy for White people engaged in a conflict with Blacks is racist. The details are irrelevant: in any racial conflict, one must support the non-White side in order to be Politically Correct. It doesn't matter what the Blacks are doing to the Whites: if you complain about it, you will be accused of racism.

I've seen this happen many times. My organization, the National Alliance, distributes leaflets and stickers with the message, "Earth's most endangered species: the White race help preserve it," and then our address. That's all: no mention of Blacks, Jews, racial conflict, or anything else, just a call for concern about preserving our own kind. And yet every time we distribute this message, the news media begin shrieking hysterically about "racism" and "hate": every time. Some of our "Earth's most endangered species" stickers show up in a school or on a university campus or posted on traffic signs in a community, and the local media people begin shrieking about "hate propaganda" and urge local citizens to call the police if they see one of our stickers.

The big Jewish media bosses have everyone who works for the media, Gentile as well as Jew, so thoroughly conditioned, so thoroughly indoctrinated with anti-White propaganda, that any expression of concern for White people is denounced immediately as "hate" and "racism." I'll guarantee you, if the White Rhodesians were mopping up the Blacks over there, running the last of them out of the country and reclaiming their farms, there would be non-stop anti-Rhodesian coverage on every television news program in America and in Britain. There would be calls from the politicians in the Congress for our government to send in the U.S. Army to save the Blacks and punish the wicked White Rhodesians. A strict embargo on all trade with Rhodesia already would have been imposed. That idiot we have in the White House wouldn't have to study the matter the way he did before issuing a statement on stem cell research; the Jews would have him on television immediately denouncing the Rhodesians and threatening grim reprisals. And his British counterpart, Tony Blair, would be shaking his fist and foaming at the mouth as he raved against the evils of "White racism."

And do you know what the British and U.S. governments have done to discourage Mugabe in his current war against the White population of Rhodesia? The Brits are threatening not to let their cricket team play in Rhodesia when it goes on tour next year. Last week the U.S. Senate passed something called the "Zimbabwe Democracy and Recovery Act." It couples additional monetary handouts from the U.S. Treasury for various programs in Rhodesia to visa restrictions on those charged with violent repression of civil rights. Visa restrictions! That's what's supposed to make Mugabe behave himself!

Of course, there's no hint in the "Zimbabwe Democracy and Recovery Act" of the genocide being waged against White Rhodesians. Really, the whole idea of the thing is to provide money for the so-called "democratic opposition" to Mugabe's dictatorship: money to finance Black democrats, not to save White Rhodesians. Even so, the whole business is being handled very quietly, lest the media make a fuss about it and claim that it's a "racist" act because by helping Mugabe's opponents it may help the White farmers. But really, there's no danger of the media making a fuss about it because the last thing the Jewish media bosses want to do is alert the White lemmings here about what's going on in Rhodesia.

Well, as I said earlier, I don't like to talk about what's going on in Rhodesia and in South Africa, and believe me, what's happening in Rhodesia now will be happening in South Africa soon. It depresses me to talk about this. I talk about it because it is a powerful lesson for us. It was only a few years ago that both of these countries were White countries. They were good, decent places for our people to live. I knew South Africans and Rhodesians. They were better people, on the average, than White Americans: better looking, healthier, better racially, better genetically. They had a small problem with Black terrorists, but it was a small problem. Fewer Rhodesians and South Africans were killed each year by Black terrorists than were killed in traffic accidents. Many, many more died each year from smoking cigarettes than from fighting a bush war against Black communists such as Robert Mugabe. And yet both countries now are under Black rule and are sinking rapidly into savagery and chaos.

How did it happen? The short answer is that it happened because both countries were persuaded to commit collective race suicide. I knew Rhodesians more than 20 years ago, before they all decided to commit suicide. I have known South Africans both before and after their collective suicide in 1993. They had some weaknesses that I noticed from the beginning. For one thing they were far too strongly under the influence of their churches and of Christian doctrine. This was especially true of the Afrikaners, the Boers, but I also noticed it to a lesser extent among Rhodesians and among the English portion, the Anglican portion, of the South African population. The Christian churches trained every Black terrorist leader in Rhodesia and in South Africa, but this fact seemed to make no impression on the Whites there. The churches were a part of White society. The Whites believed the churches were on their side: White, Christian civilization versus Black savagery and superstition, that sort of thing. Even after the churches betrayed them to their enemies, most of them still believed that.

Well, actually, there was more to the psychological weakness of the Whites than subversive Christian "brotherhood" teaching. In a sense, the Whites were too civilized, too genteel. I used to tell my South African visitors, "It may be that the Black terrorists are no real military threat to you, but the only viable long-range solution for you is to get rid of all the Blacks and other non-Whites in your country. Do whatever you must do: force them out, sterilize them, kill them -- otherwise you will lose your country. Of course, it was easy for me to say that and much harder for the South Africans to implement it, with their economy making such extensive use of Black labor. There would have been very tough economic, political, and diplomatic problems to solve.

But the negative reactions of my South African guests to my advice went beyond these practical difficulties, beyond their reluctance to give up their Black gardeners and cooks and cleaning women and their reluctance to face the economic problems of restructuring their economy to use White labor only. They were shocked by my advice. Most of them, I believe, regarded Blacks as fellow human beings who were merely at a lower stage of development and still needed guidance and help from Whites. "Blacks are like children," they told me. "They need our help, and most Blacks know that. They know that they are better off under our guidance than they would be without it. That's why we don't have to worry about their ever trying to take over our government and run it themselves. They know that they need us. It's only a few terrorists who are a problem, and we can deal with the terrorists."

You know, that sounds a lot like the sort of foolishness that I used to hear from my fellow Southerners back in the 1950s and even into the 1960s. None of the Southerners with whom I discussed the matter believed that Blacks were equal in intelligence to Whites or in their ability to build or to maintain a civilization, but they could not quite bring themselves to regard Blacks as vermin to be eradicated. That just wasn't Christian. And even those who were relatively free of Christian influences felt that I was going too far. "Help the Blacks along," they told me. "Make a few concessions to them, show them that we aren't interested in oppressing them, and they will behave themselves. They will see that it is in their interest not to wreck the society that has given them so much more than they could obtain on their own. We can't just exterminate them or force them all to go back to Africa. That would be barbaric. That would be stooping to their level."

Foolishness. Suicidal foolishness. We really have become too civilized and have forgotten one of Nature's most basic rules: Two different types of animal cannot permanently occupy exactly the same ecological niche. One eventually must drive the other into extinction. That is what is happening now in southern Africa. And in fact, it also is happening in America.

We accept the truth of this when other species are involved. Why is it so difficult for many of us to apply the rule to ourselves as well? Why do some of us believe that it is un-civilized or un-genteel to deal with our race problem in a rational way?

I'm sure that everyone has heard the propaganda slogan promoted by the Jewish media and their collaborators to the effect that racists are made, not born. The Politically Correct party line is that children are born without any racial feelings or predispositions at all, and that if we don't teach them to be racists, they will grow up loving everyone equally, and that will be a desirable state of affairs. That's the way to avoid racial conflict, and so we should be very careful to shield our children from any influences that might make racists of them.

Well, for one thing that propaganda is based on a lie. And for another thing the lie is calculated to weaken us and to hasten our annihilation. The fact is that children, while not born with an explicit set of opinions about racial matters, are born with a strong tendency to regard their own kind as friend and those who are not their kind as foe. To this extent, racism does not require deliberate tutelage. Children become racists, which is to say, they develop a strong preference for their own kind, through a natural process known as "imprinting" very early in life. Nature gave us this tendency because it is a survival trait. We developed the trait over millions of years of evolution, because those of us who had it were more likely to survive than those who didn't have it. And the media bosses and their allies, who are saturating us with the lie that racism is unnatural and evil, don't want us to survive.

If you want to read more about the evolutionary basis of so-called "racism," I recommend that you read some of the works of the very distinguished anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith, especially his book A New Theory of Human Evolution. It's a bit hard to find these days because it's Politically Incorrect and has been purged from many libraries that formerly carried it. Sir Arthur Keith was a very civilized and genteel man, but he also was a perceptive and honest student of Nature.

As for me, I make no pretensions to gentility. I tend to be crude and simple and direct. Sir Arthur Keith explains it all in very polite terms, but I say it simply this way: If we want our kind to survive on this planet longer than another generation or two, then we must clear the cobwebs of Christian superstition and Jewish propaganda from our minds and face the facts without being squeamish. One fact is that we must have exclusive possession of those portions of this planet that constitute suitable habitat for us. Another fact is that in order to obtain and maintain that exclusive possession, we must be prepared to kill, to annihilate, any and all competitors. A third fact is that racism is God's gift to any race that wants to survive. Racism is healthy and natural and essential, and we had damned well better clear of minds of the Judaeo-Christian lie that it is evil and wicked and nasty and low-brow.

To sum it up, the law of life is: kill or die. That's still the law, no matter how civilized and genteel we become. We do not invalidate the law by wearing the latest fashions, by being computer whizzes, and by attending very polite tea parties. The law does not say, of course, that we cannot cooperate with our kind, that we cannot collaborate constructively with other members of our own race. It does not say that we cannot design and build a society in which we can work and play and breed and live at peace, more or less, with other White people. Not at peace all the time, but most of the time: enough of the time to still continue building and developing and improving our civilization, and, make no mistake about this, it is our civilization and no one else's.

But the law of life does tell us that if we believe that being nice to members of other races will persuade them to be nice to us, then we are on the way out, just like the Rhodesians. It does tell us that if we deal with Blacks and mestizos and Asians under the assumption that they are like us because they have learned to speak English and to mimic our manners, or that they have the same aspirations and ideals and standards and values and way of looking at the world that we do, then we will doom our posterity to oblivion. If we take the paternalistic attitude, as the South Africans did and as many American Southerners did, that the Blacks are like children, whom we should protect and promote and assist, and think that they will appreciate our help, then the fate of our race will be that of the dodo.

Look at what is happening in South Africa and in Rhodesia now today. Think about how the Rhodesians and South Africans got themselves into their horrible, lethal predicaments. Then ponder the question: should we strive to be nice, or should we strive to survive?

© 2001 National Vanguard Books · Box 330 · Hillsboro ·WV 24946 · USA

A cassette recording of this broadcast is available for $12.95 including postage from:
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946

Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page