Hardheaded Altruism

Dr. William Pierce



To: National Alliance (national@natvan.com)
American Dissident Voices Broadcast of Oct. 2, 1999
Subject: 10-02-99: Hardheaded Altruism:

Yesterday I received a letter from a National Alliance member who works
in a hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. Most of his patients come to him
through the emergency room, and he was lamenting to me the fact that the
majority of them are non-White and most of them don't pay for their
treatment. Furthermore, a large percentage of the non-Whites are illegal
aliens. He kept score for a week and reported that approximately 45 per
cent of his patients were Hispanic mestizos, 9 per cent were Blacks, 11
per cent were American Indians, 5 per cent were Asians, and only 30 per
cent were Whites.

He wrote to me, and I quote: "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." -- end of quote --

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

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

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.


The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADVlist.

To subscribe to ADVlist, send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" as the subject of the message to: ADVlist@NatVan.com

For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or

==> The National Alliance has a strict anti-spamming policy.  This 
information is intended for interested parties only and is not to be 
indiscriminately distributed via mass e-mailing or newsgroup posting.

To contact us, write to:
     National Vanguard Books
     Attention:  ADVlist
     P.O. Box 330
     Hillsboro, WV  24946

or e-mail: national@NatVan.com please tell us if we can post your
comments and if so whether you want your name or e-mail address

-->  TO BE REMOVED from ADVlist, send an e-mail message to:  
ADVlist@NatVan.com  which has "unsubscribe" as the subject of the

(c) 1999 National Vanguard Books



Back to Patrick Henry On-Line
Back to The Thought 4 The Day
Back to Stuff I Wish I Wrote -- But Didn't