To Be, or Not to Be

Dr. William Pierce



To: National Alliance (
American Dissident Voices Broadcast of April 29, 2000

I've spoken about the murderous racial attacks against the farmers in
Rhodesia during the previous two broadcasts, but the situation there
continues to worsen, and I'm obliged to speak about it again today,
because the mass media in America continue largely to avoid the subject.
In addition to the invasion of White farms by armed Black gangs and the
murder of White farmers, the Black supporters of dictator Robert Mugabe
have turned to a new terror tactic against Whites: the gang rape of
White women.

Eleven days ago, on April 18, a Black gang burst into the home of a
White family just outside Salisbury, now called "Harare." They seized
28-year-old Brendan Jowett and repeatedly smashed him in the head and
face with a brick, until he lost consciousness. They dragged his
25-year-old wife Tonia into a bedroom and gang-raped her. Then they
found Tonia's 18-year-old sister, Laura Wiggins, hiding in a cupboard.
They dragged her out and raped her repeatedly.

Then the Blacks poured furniture polish, which they believed was fuel
oil, over their victims and attempted to set them afire, first with
matches and then with a burning log from the fireplace, but the
furniture polish would not burn. Finally the Blacks stole everything
they could carry away and fled. On the same day another White farmer and
his wife had gasoline poured on them, but when the Blacks were ready to
burn their victims they discovered that they had forgotten to bring
matches. The farmer and his wife got away with a brutal beating and the
wrecking and looting of their home. White Rhodesians should at least be
thankful for the ineptitude of the Blacks.

In the face of the overwhelming numerical advantage held by the Blacks,
Black ineptitude is not enough to save the Whites of Rhodesia from their
enemies, unfortunately. As I reported last Saturday, on Tuesday of last
week, a Black mob murdered Martin Olds on his farm near Bulawayo,
Rhodesia's second-largest city. The 43-year-old White farmer knew that
Black mobs were operating in his area, and he had sent his wife Kathy
and his two children, 17-year-old Martine and 14-year-old Angus, to stay
with friends in the city. Olds was a former member of the Grey Scouts,
Rhodesia's elite anti-terrorist unit, before his country surrendered
itself to Black rule in 1979. His neighbors considered him completely
fearless. Ten years ago, when a friend had been seized by a crocodile,
Olds had leaped from his boat and wrestled the crocodile in order to
free his friend.

Olds was alone on his 12,000-acre cattle farm when a mob of 70 armed
Blacks attacked his farmhouse early Tuesday morning. He telephoned the
police station, which was less than ten minutes away, but the Black
police didn't show up until five hours later, after he was dead and the
attackers were gone. Olds defended himself with a shotgun and a hunting
rifle, and he wounded several of his attackers. He himself was hit by
several bullets, and the bone in one leg was shattered. He bandaged and
splinted his leg and continued defending himself until he lost
consciousness. Then the Blacks swarmed over him and beat him to death
with clubs.

As the news of the gang rapes and of the murder of Martin Olds spread,
many White farm families abandoned their homes and fled to the cities.
Black gangs then were free to wreck and loot their homes without any
resistance. One thing the Black gangs always do is kill any pets the
Whites leave behind when they flee. Two days after the Olds murder, on
Thursday of last week, an Associated Press TV News camera crew happened
to be present when a mob of 200 Blacks rampaged through a White farm
near the town of Arcturus, 35 miles northeast of Salisbury. The farm
belongs to Alan Windram, but Windram and his family already had fled.
The Blacks found Windram's six dogs and beat and stoned them to death
while the Associated Press crew filmed the incident. The Blacks were
hooting, jumping around, and gesticulating in their typical manner while
they killed the dogs, obviously enjoying themselves immensely. Then the
Blacks wrecked Windram's farmhouse and burned the homes of at least 30
of his workers. All of this was recorded by the Associated Press camera
crew, but believe me, it'll be a cold day in hell before you see any of
it on network television in America. It makes Blacks look bad. It might
make some animal lovers like Blacks less.

Coincidentally, at the same time Martin Olds was being murdered on April
18, squads of Black police were raiding other White farms in the same
area and seizing firearms from White farmers, leaving them defenseless.
And also on that day, which happened to be the anniversary of the
surrender of White Rhodesia to the Blacks, Britain's Queen Elizabeth
sent a message of congratulation and goodwill to Robert Mugabe. And the
Queen expressed not a word of concern or disapproval about Mugabe's
genocidal policy toward Rhodesia's White farmers. The British
government, of course, has been on the wrong side of the Black campaign
against Whites in Africa ever since being on the wrong side of the
Second World War.

Oh, yes: the British government did make one additional statement about
Rhodesia on April 18. Tony Blair's Foreign Office announced that no
special considerations would be given to White Rhodesians seeking asylum
in Britain from the ethnic cleansing now going on in Rhodesia, or
"Zimbabwe," as Blair and company prefer to call it. They will not be
permitted into Britain unless they can prove that they will be able to
support themselves. As I mentioned last week, Tony Blair is not eager to
have an influx of White immigrants who almost certainly will not vote
for his party. Black Rhodesians, yes; White Rhodesians, no.

But there is one resident of Rhodesia, neither White nor Black, who
always will find a cordial welcome in Tony Blair's Britain. That is a
54-year-old man named Nicholas Hoogstraten. Hoogstraten is a billionaire
landowner in Rhodesia. He began buying land there in 1963 and now owns
nine large farms and cattle ranches totaling more than a million acres.
He also is a long-time financial backer of Robert Mugabe and his
Zimbabwe African National Union-Popular Front, or ZANU-PF for short. He
began backing Mugabe in the 1960s and continued backing him all during
the time ZANU was waging a terrorist war against Rhodesia's White
population. He still backs Mugabe financially, and in an interview with
a major British newspaper, the Guardian, which appeared in the April 21
issue of that newspaper, he disparaged Rhodesia's White farmers and
blamed the country's present turmoil entirely on them. He told the
Guardian, and I quote: "This has all been stirred up by White
disenfranchised trash who still think it's Rhodesia. I have some good
White friends in Zimbabwe, but these Rhodies, as we call them, are
disgusting people. They want to ruin the country. They treat the Blacks
worse than Blacks are treated in America. I've had no problem with
indigenizing my properties." -- end quote -- What he meant by that last
statement is that when he buys a farm from a White family fleeing the
country to get away from the Black terrorists he supports, he fires the
White managers and foremen and hires Blacks belonging to Mugabe's party
to take the Whites' place. He told the Guardian that he expects that
this practice, plus his continued support for Mugabe, will ensure that
his properties will remain safe from the marauding mobs of squatters who
have been wrecking and taking over White farms.

Last Friday's Guardian also provides a number of other fascinating
details about Hoogstraten. For example, he went to prison briefly in the
1960s after he threw a hand grenade at the home of a business rival. One
detail the Guardian neglected to mention, however, is that Hoogstraten
is a Jew. His family, after being expelled from Spain at the end of the
15th century, settled in the Netherlands, which accounts for his
Dutch-sounding name. During the 17th and 18th centuries his family were
among the Netherlands' most active dealers in Black slaves, shipping
hundreds of thousands of them from the west coast of Africa to the New
World. He is a kike's kike. Not only does he refer to the men and women
who built Rhodesia as "White trash," but he refers to Gentile women as
"chattels" -- that's the word this unbelievably arrogant Hebrew actually
used in his Guardian interview -- and bragged to the newspaper that he
keeps his mansions in Brighton, in Cannes, in Monte Carlo, in Maryland,
in Florida, and in Rhodesia stocked with White women for his pleasure.

Imagine how pleased with himself Hoogstraten must be. He goes to
Rhodesia in 1963 as a 17-year-old with the money his ancestors made
selling Black flesh; he sizes up the conflict between the White
Rhodesians and the Black terrorists and bets that the terrorists will
win because the Whites are too soft and too Christian to beat them; he
secretly makes contact with the terrorists and begins financing Mugabe;
and at the same time he begins buying up White farm land. When the
Whites finally cave in and give up, the price of land in Rhodesia drops
sharply and Hoogstraten is able to buy much more of it. Now he is
forcing the price of land even lower by continuing to support Mugabe's
terrorist tactics and expects soon to be in a position to buy as much
more land as he wants at fire-sale prices.

That is really Tony Blair's kind of Jew. How the trendy liberals of
Britain must admire him! As for me, Hoogstraten's really exceptional
behavior -- living among Rhodesia's Whites and pretending to be one of
them while secretly financing the Black terrorist gangs who were killing
White farmers and their wives and children, all so that he would be
better positioned to grab their land -- is just one more bit of evidence
that Jews indeed are not like us. It is difficult even to believe that
they belong to the same species.

Even without the malign influence of Hoogstraten and his ilk, the
Rhodesians had serious problems in the 1960s and 1970s, and because they
are problems which also afflict us in America and our kinsmen in Europe
today, they deserve our attention. In the face of a Black terrorist war
against them in the 1960s and 1970s, the Rhodesians were presented with
the need to make a hard decision: either to yield their country to the
Blacks or to put an end to the threat. They evaded this decision and
tried to choose a middle course, and they fell between two stools.

In the 1950s Rhodesia was a prosperous, White country, and it was a very
pleasant place to live. The Rhodesians had worked hard and well to build
their country and develop their farms. They were a nation of strong men
and beautiful women. They played as hard as they worked. Rhodesia was
the jewel in the crown of the British Empire. When the rot back in
London led the British government to begin dismantling its empire and
turning its colonies over to the local savages, the Rhodesians declared
their independence and made an effort to preserve the country where they
had been born and bred. But the rot had infected the Rhodesians as well.

It was easy enough for them to see the trend of things in the world. The
forces of liberalism and egalitarianism had won the bloodiest and most
destructive war in the history of the world. The best people all over
Europe had been hunted down and butchered, and the worst people were
ruling. Democracy and equality were triumphant, and their minions were
eager to spread their plague to the whole world -- or at least, to the
whole White world. Though infected with the same madness raging in
Europe, the Rhodesians naturally enough were not eager to commit
suicide. They refused to turn their country over to the gangs of Black
terrorists which were beginning to become active with the support of
predatory Jews such as Hoogstraten -- and also with the support of the
Christian churches, in which the madness seems to have taken hold with
special virulence.

But the problem extended beyond the Jews and the Christian clerics. It
was in the Rhodesian people themselves. During the war they also had
supported enthusiastically the forces of darkness and democracy. It was
not so easy after the war to realize that they had made a terrible
mistake, and that the master they had served during the war was
preparing to devour them, just as it had devoured the Germans and the
Poles and the Hungarians and the Ukrainians and the Russians and the
Latvians and many another nation of their kinsmen in Europe. And I'm not
talking now only about Soviet Communism. I'm talking about the more
general sickness, the more general madness, of which communism is merely
an extreme manifestation.

As I said, it was easy enough for the Rhodesians to see the trend of
things, to see the push for more equality and more democracy everywhere,
and the more thoughtful Rhodesians certainly could extrapolate the trend
and realize that it would mean the death of their country. But already
caught up in it as they were, they could not bring themselves simply to
reject it altogether and to reorient themselves in a better and
healthier direction. They could not simply say, "Whoa! We see now where
this madness of equality and democracy is heading. We can see that it
means yielding ourselves to Black rule and watching everything that we
have built be destroyed. We refuse to take that course. We reject
equality and democracy. We recognize every institution and every group
and every individual trying to push us along that course as our enemy,
and we will oppose our enemies with all of our strength of body and mind
and spirit." That was what they should have said, but they didn't. The
rot was already in their own souls.

To be, or not to be: that was the question faced by the Rhodesians, and
they did not have the strength of character to choose to be and then to
accept all of the implications of that choice. They did not want not to
be, but they could not accept what the choice to be entailed, and so now
they will perish. The country they and their forefathers worked and
sacrificed for will fall into the hands of creatures such as Hoogstraten
and Mugabe, who chose to be, and who accepted all of the implications of
that choice.

What are the implications of choosing to be instead of not to be, of
choosing life instead of death? The Rhodesians should have assessed
their situation realistically when their problem became apparent, around
1955 or so, and they should have accepted the fact that they could not
continue existing as a ruling minority over a Black majority when the
rest of the world was hell-bent for equality and democracy. They did not
have the option which has worked so well for the Jews nearly everywhere
of disguising themselves and blending in with the majority population.
They could not pretend to be Shonas or Zulus or what have you, the way
Hoogstraten had pretended to be a White Rhodesian, while maintaining a
secret unity among themselves and also maintaining their control and
ownership of the country. It wasn't just that the very obvious racial
differences would have kept them from blending in and convincing anyone
that they were Blacks, the way Hoogstraten had been able to blend in and
convince everyone that he was a Rhodesian; they also couldn't squat in
their filth and scratch their fleas and eat insects -- or each other, in
order to persuade the world that they really were equal to the Blacks. 

Since they couldn't blend in, they might have tried another Jewish
tactic: control the opposition. If loyal, healthy Rhodesians had owned
the big newspapers back in Britain and had gotten their people into the
controlling positions in the BBC -- and also in Hollywood, since the
output of Hollywood poisons the whole White world, and not just America
-- if White Rhodesians had been able to control the media in Britain and
America, and therefore control the British government and British public
opinion, they could have continued in the more or less quiet possession
of their country indefinitely. They could have suppressed the deranged
clerics, and they could have used any Black terrorist groups which
sprang up for weekend target practice. But that option really wasn't
open to them either. They didn't control the media. The Jews did, and
the Jews weren't about to let go. The Rhodesians simply didn't have the
resources or the time to take the media away from the Jews, even if they
had had the will.

The one option open to them was to get rid of the Blacks. The only
reason there was a Black majority in Rhodesia was that the Whites who
had come to Rhodesia before them had made the country fertile and
prosperous and able to support a much larger population. There had been
only 100,000 Blacks in the whole area when the Whites began farming in
Rhodesia. And of course, the Whites utilized the Blacks for labor. They
thought that course more economically sound than exterminating or
expelling them. And in the short run it was, but now the long run is
catching up with them. In America in the 17th and 18th centuries it
seemed economically sound to buy Black slaves from Mr. Hoogstraten's
ancestors to work the land in the southern colonies, but now the long
run has caught up with White Americans also.

It would have been very difficult, very costly, very painful, for the
Rhodesians to extricate themselves from their mess in 1950. It would
have required determination and intelligence and subterfuge, but it
could have been done -- if they had had the will to do it. They might
even have done it in 1960. But in neither 1950 nor 1960 did they have
the will. The Christians among them would have been horrified by the
thought of getting rid of the Blacks, of either eradicating them or
driving them out, just as the Christians in America today cannot cope
with the demands of racial survival in this world.

But it wasn't just the Christian inability to make hard decisions. Greed
and plain, old-fashioned stupidity played major roles as well. The big
commercial farmers were interested in current profits above all. They
weren't willing to give up their Black workers. They weren't willing to
do the expensive things needed to replace the Black workers, such as
offering free land or very cheap land to White workers in Europe or
America or South Africa, if they would come to Rhodesia. The big
commercial farmers thought themselves indispensable. They could not
imagine the Blacks would be so foolish as to kill the goose which was
laying the golden eggs. They were willing to sacrifice the interests of
their fellow Whites in order to hold onto their own advantages.

And as I just said there also was much stupidity. Even today there are
White Rhodesians who believe that the problem is just Robert Mugabe. If
another Black, a more reasonable Black, would take his place, then
things would be all right in Rhodesia again, they believe.

Well, as I said, the Rhodesians could not accept the hard requirements
of choosing life in this hard and unforgiving world, and so now they
will perish. Let us in America ponder that, and let at least some of us
learn from it.


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:

For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at 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: 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:  which has "unsubscribe" as the subject of the

(c) 2000 National Vanguard Books



Over to Martin Lindstedt's Church&State Theocracy WWW page
Back to Patrick Henry On-Line
Back to The Thought 4 The Day
Back to Stuff I Wish I Wrote -- But Didn't