Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
He wrote to me:
"The Hispanics, Blacks, Indians, and welfare Whites get everything free, through ACCESS and other socialist programs. The Hispanics flood the emergency room and take valuable resources away from patients who really need them. They bring their whole families to the hospital and have to be chased away by the security guards. They fill the waiting rooms at night and sleep anywhere they can. They ignore the trash cans and leave their trash on the floor. They try to invade the staff lounges for `free' coffee and whatever else they can pilfer. They think nothing of grabbing fresh sheets, pillows, and blankets from the linen stacks and making themselves beds on the floor. They smoke in the elevators and are generally a filthy, ungrateful lot. Even the Blacks resent them."
My correspondent describes a number of other details of his hospital work and winds up his description with the remark that the major complaint he hears from his freeloading patients is that the hospital needs to hire more Spanish-speaking staff members, the better to take care of their unpaid needs. Well, anyway, all of this helps to explain why hospital bills have become astronomical for that portion of the population which does pay for the services it receives. Each working White person who goes to a hospital for treatment is carrying about four drones on his back, three of them non-White. And the letter also led me to think about a number of related problems in our society.
You know, the reason each productive White American is able to carry four drones on his back is that our people, White people, have something that Black and Brown people don't have and never will have because we cannot give it to them, and that is our ability to create, to innovate, to invent. The technological revolution we have wrought during the past 50 years, a revolution based on our advances in science during the past 300 years, is what enables us to carry so much dead weight. But of course, the fact that we are able to carry dead weight is no excuse for doing so. Imagine the quality of life our people could have for themselves now if we were not carrying dead weight, if all of our productive work went toward the betterment of our own people.
Actually, the economic consequence of having our country flooded with non-Whites is the least of the evils this non-White horde has brought to us. My correspondent in Phoenix has described for us the way in which the environment has been degraded for White medical staff and hospital patients in Phoenix. Hospital conditions have become so bad there -- so much like conditions in the Third World -- that my correspondent finds himself hating an occupation that he used to love. But as a matter of fact, the living and working environment for our people nearly everywhere has been degraded in one way or another. Some American cities have not been hit as hard as Phoenix, while conditions in other cities have become even worse.
And it's not just our hospitals, of course. It's our public schools, our neighborhoods, our suburban shopping malls and the centers of our cities, our factories and stores and offices and recreational facilities, our colleges and universities. I'm really sick about the multicultural environment in our universities today, which used to be civilized enclaves of European culture. Before the stifling regime of Political Correctness took hold -- a regime which everywhere is a concomitant of multiculturalism -- before that, our universities were places where new ideas could be developed and freely expressed and where excellence was the goal and the standard for every endeavor. Today it's hard even to imagine the sort of stimulating and intellectually exciting environment we used to have at our universities -- and in addition to that the feeling of tradition and community and of being a part of something with very deep roots.
Well, that's all gone now. Of course, there still are many White Americans -- especially those living in smaller towns and away from the most heavily impacted areas on the east and west coasts, who have not felt the degradation of our living environment as much as my National Alliance correspondent in Phoenix has. Many White people have fled to less affected parts of the country. For others the decline has been so gradual that they have hardly noticed. But things are speeding up now. It is becoming more and more difficult not to notice what is happening. There are fewer and fewer places for White Americans to flee to. Within the next year or two many, many more White people will be reacting with the same degree of exasperation expressed by our medical worker in Phoenix.
And that is a good and necessary development. It is necessary for this degradation of our country to be speeded up, so that our people have a harder time ignoring it. If it proceeds too slowly most people will manage to ignore it, and that will be the death of everything. If this continued invasion of our living area by the Third World continues we will be completely swamped. We already have the Clintonistas counting down in eager anticipation of the day sometime around the middle of the next century when we will be a minority in our own land and a non-White majority will be lording it over us. And of course, it will be not only the drowning of America in a non-White tide, it will be the destruction of the last of the rain forests and the last of the wild animals everywhere, as the Brown and Black population explosions continue in their own parts of the world. It will be terminal pollution everywhere on our overcrowded planet.
How did this happen? What were we thinking of when we took our medical science to Africa and Asia and the jungles of Central and South America and reduced the death rates in those places so that their non-White populations could explode?
If we had just left them swinging through the trees and sacrificing each other wholesale to their various gods, instead of trying to get them to wear clothes and learn English or Spanish or French and wash their hands after going to the bathroom, they still would be happily making mud pies with their own filth and dying like flies, and their population density still would be what it was ten thousand years ago; the tropical rain forests still would be thriving, and the lions still would be eating as many of them as vice versa. Most important, we wouldn't be carrying them on our backs now whenever we go to a hospital; we wouldn't be subjecting our kids to them in our schools; we wouldn't have them shoved in our faces whenever we turn on a television receiver; we wouldn't be looking for parts of the country to which we can flee where there are fewer of them; we wouldn't be watching our whole civilization being pulled back down into barbarism by their dead weight. We could be masters in our own world, a cleaner and greener and healthier world.
So why did we do it? Well, there are historical reasons, and there are current reasons. Historically, we always have had a surfeit of shortsightedness -- or at least, the farsighted people among us were not in the policy-making positions. To a large extent, of course, we didn't have any policy when we settled the New World. We just let entrepreneurs do their own thing, and that thing nearly always was based on individual profit rather than on the general welfare of the race. We let a bunch of greedy businessmen plan things for their own benefit: cheaper labor, bigger markets, more profits -- those were their considerations.
And among the greediest of these businessmen seeking a bigger market for their wares were the Christian priests, hell bent on converting savages and saving Black or Brown souls. Christian universalism certainly played a major role in the destruction of our world. We should have lynched every missionary who had the crazy notion that Blacks needed Jesus instead of their own voodoo gods or that Mexicans needed the Catholic Church instead of their jungle temples, where they liked to cut the hearts out of their prisoners and eat them.
Completely aside from Christianity, we let the altruism which seems to be unique to our people run wild. It is wonderful that we care about one another, that more than in any other race there are among us individuals who really do feel the pain of others. It is wonderful that many of us want to preserve the rain forests of South America and the great wild beasts of Africa for their own sake. Whenever one of these United Nations commissions is organized to protect some part of our natural environment on this planet, I have a strong suspicion that all of the non-White members on the commission are there strictly for window dressing and for the stipend they receive for lending their non-White faces to the commission. Certainly, were it not for specifically White sensibilities, there would be no one combating the fur trade or trying to save the whales or the redwoods or anything else.
All of that is wonderful, but it is not wonderful that so many of us who are able to feel the pain of others do not seem to have the farsighted understanding which should go along with that empathy. We seem to have achieved that understanding when it comes to things such as forest and wildlife management. We understand that it often is good to permit Nature to take its course in the case of forest fires, or in maintaining the natural balance between predator and prey, and so on. But we need to apply the same considerations to the non-White races. We never should have permitted medical intervention in the non-White world. We should not be trying now to halt the spread of AIDS in Africa. We should not even consider famine relief for Ethiopia. We should not interfere in the mutual genocide between Hutus and Tutsis. Unless we temper our altruism with intelligence -- and especially, unless we limit it to our own race -- it will destroy us rather than help us achieve a higher civilization and a higher grade of humanity on this planet.
What rules us now is a soft-headed, mushy, egalitarian, feminine sort of altruism, where we are more inclined to feed the starving picaninnies of Africa than to take account of the fact that every picaninny who doesn't starve to death now will grow up to breed more picaninnies. We feel sorry for the disease-ridden Blacks and Browns of the world, and instead of keeping them and their diseases strictly confined to their part of the world, we bring them into our part of the world so that we can share their diseases -- as in the case of New York's current outbreak of West Nile encephalitis imported from Africa.
What we need is a hard-headed, masculine sort of altruism, which makes us as concerned for the preservation of our own racial quality as for the stamping out of the fur trade, the sort of altruism which leads us to sterilize our own defectives rather than permitting them to breed a White welfare class, just as it leads us to thin out the two-legged population of Africa rather than permitting it to continue encroaching on the four-legged populations.
And you know, whenever I say something like that I can hear the screams of protest in the background. I can hear the softheaded altruists screaming that I am advocating genocide, and oh, isn't that awful. But as a matter of fact, it is their policies which are leading to a far more terrible genocide, with our race as the victim.
When one has a world overcrowded with races competing for a limited living area and limited resources, there will be genocide. The feminine altruists cannot face that hard fact, and their activities simply guarantee a bloodier and more destructive genocide in the end. The masculine altruists, on the other hand, should be capable of imposing a necessary discipline in order to preserve the health of a beleaguered planet and permit its most valuable life forms to continue developing, instead of being dragged down by the least valuable.
Of course, this whole discussion is academic at this point. The masculine altruists are outgunned now by those who, for one reason or another, oppose the imposition of any discipline. Certainly, many more White people, and not just in New York, will die from West Nile encephalitis, from drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis, and from a hundred other exotic diseases which the shortsighted, feminine altruists have inflicted on us. Instead of banning the carriers of these diseases from our continent, we will continue wringing our hands over the fact that so many Africans are dying from AIDS, and we'll continue trying to find a cure. And many, many more of our people, like the National Alliance medical worker in Phoenix will come to hate their jobs, hate the neighborhoods in which they live, hate the schools they attend.
I have mentioned some of the historical causes of our problem: causes for which we ourselves are largely to blame. But there also are more recent causes. Within ourselves we have both regressive and progressive tendencies -- both softheaded, feminine tendencies and hardheaded, masculine tendencies. Sometimes the softheaded tendencies prevail, and sometimes the hardheaded tendencies. And as I indicated earlier, sometimes we simply drift without guidance or policy.
During the past century our situation has been complicated greatly by the fact that we have had an alien element in our midst which has strenuously opposed our hardheaded tendencies and kept them from coming to the fore, and at the same time has encouraged our regressive tendencies or tried to prevent us from having any policy. We have seen this especially during the past 50 years, with softheaded policies on immigration, on education, on welfare, on law enforcement, on the relations between the sexes, on race relations, on the citizen's right to self-defense, and on a number of other issues vital to our survival and progress. This alien element, of course, is the Jewish element, and it has gained virtually a monopoly control over the opinion-forming media in America.
Just this week we have had another striking example of the way in which the Jewish media are able to manipulate public opinion and public policy. The former president of Chile, ailing 83-year-old Augusto Pinochet, went to England last year for medical treatment. In response to a complaint by a group of Marxists in Spain, last October the British government arrested Pinochet, and since then the lawyers have wrangled over whether or not he should be extradited to Spain to be tried on a charge of so-called "crimes against humanity." Specifically, the Marxists claim that when Pinochet was president of Chile between 1973 and 1990, his government tortured a number of communist prisoners during interrogation. Marxists everywhere have had a special hatred for Pinochet because he successfully crushed communism in Chile, and the Jews have had a special hatred for him because a strikingly high percentage of the communists he crushed were Jews.
No one really denies that in Pinochet's Chile some communist prisoners were dealt with roughly. That was the only effective way to deal with communist subversives, who were attempting to undermine Chilean society and take over the country. Whatever was done to the communists by Pinochet's police, however, was quite mild compared to what the communists did to prisoners whenever they got the upper hand. So today the leftists and the Jews are demonstrating noisily in London for Pinochet to be extradited to Spain so that he can be tried and punished because his government tortured communist prisoners during the time Pinochet was the president of Chile. The Jews are arguing that the normal immunity from arrest held by heads of state and former heads of state doesn't apply in Pinochet's case, because of the special nature of his crimes: namely, "crimes against humanity."
The fascinating thing about this affair is that all the while the Left and the Right have been arguing the pros and cons of Pinochet's case, another political leader whose government has routinely tortured prisoners since 1948 comes and goes freely wherever he pleases, including Britain, and there's never a yap about him in the controlled media, never a suggestion that he should be arrested and tried for "crimes against humanity." That political leader is Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak. At the same time that there has been a big stir almost every day in the media in Britain about the legal wrangling over Pinochet's pending extradition, there has a been a debate in the Hebrew press in Israel over whether or not the Israeli secret police should continue to torture their Palestinian prisoners during interrogation. Which is to say, there is a general recognition in Israel that the government there has had a policy of torturing non-Jewish prisoners.
Does this worry Ehud Barak? Is he concerned that he might be arrested and held for "crimes against humanity" if he travels to Britain or any other country? Is he worried that the arrest and extradition of Augusto Pinochet may set a precedent which could be used against him and other Israelis?
No, of course not. He is not worried, because he knows that the controlled media will never raise the issue. He knows that if some group somewhere demands his arrest for "crimes against humanity," the media will simply ignore the demand, and nothing will come of it.
The average citizen hasn't a clue. He sees and hears the television reporters talking about what a cruel and violent government Pinochet headed in Chile, and so it seems to him reasonable that Pinochet should be arrested and turned over to a gang of Reds for a legal lynching. And the same citizen sees and hears Barak being greeted with a smile and hugged by heads of state wherever he goes, and so it never occurs to him that Barak should be punished for anything. Public attitudes toward either Pinochet or Barak could be turned instantly by the media if they chose to do so. But of course, they won't, because the controlled media take their positions on every issue on the basis of Jewish policy.
So this problem of Jewish control of the mass media is something that we must overcome before we can even begin to do anything about our Phoenix medical worker's problems -- or any other problem.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page