THERE IS HARDLY AN ISSUE which more sharply divides White
Americans than "gun control." There is hardly a more
significant difference than that which exists between the people
who want gun control and those who don't. For there is a great
temperamental and ideological divide between those who believe in self-defense
and those who believe in surrendering and begging for mercy.
Looking at this from the standpoint of temperament: It may
seem unfair to women to categorize the tendency to surrender as
feminine and the tendency to defend oneself as masculine, but at
a very fundamental level this categorization corresponds to real
differences between feminine and masculine natures. Every person
has some of the feminine nature and some of the masculine nature
in his character. What we see today is a much greater than normal
manifestation of feminine traits in men. It is not a pretty sight.
And we can look at this divide from the standpoint of
ideology: Except for a relatively small minority of very sick
persons who actually relish the idea of surrender and fantasize
about being victimized, those who choose to give up their arms
are hoping to be protected by the government. They trust the government. They
believe the government has their best interests at heart. They
think of the government as a friend and generally approve of the government's
policies.
This divide becomes deeper and wider by the day. A Black with
an uncontrollable hatred of Whites opens fire on a crowded subway
train in New York, killing five Whites and injuring 17 more. Gun
control advocates see this massacre as support for their
position. "A gun killed and wounded those people," they say.
"If we get rid of all the guns, then Blacks and Whites will
not be able to kill each other." And people on their side of
the divide believe them and clamor for the confiscation of guns.
At the same time people on the other side of the divide rush to
gun stores, determined that they will be prepared to defend themselves
if any White-hating Black ever threatens them or their families.
Now, this divide certainly didn't exist a century ago. Then
every White man was armed, and every woman expected him to be. In
that more civilized age violent crime was a minute fraction of
what it is today. People could walk the streets of their cities
at night and, in most places, leave their doors unlocked without
fear. The government interfered relatively little in people's
lives. Most communities had police, but a man's right to defend
himself, his family, and his property was absolute.
What caused people's attitudes to change so
radically?
Well, there are a number of reasons: A century ago the country
was substantially less urban than it is now. People living in
small towns and rural areas always are more self-reliant and
independent, on the average, than city dwellers. Rural people
live a little more naturally, a little closer to Nature. They do
not depend on the elaborate infrastructure of the city, which
provides garbage collection, public transportation, shelters for the
homeless, and a thousand other protections and shields against
the natural world. Even little things, like drawing water from
one's own well and chopping one's own firewood for winter warmth,
give one a sense of reality and self-sufficiency that most
urbanites and suburbanites lack. As the nation's population became more
urban during the past century it also became less self-reliant.
Another reason is that until 1920 only men voted in the United
States. To the extent that politicians and government are
responsive to the feelings of the electorate, the government was
much less inclined before 1920 to assume the role of a protective
mother than it was after women began to vote. Although women voters
are by no means uniform in their sentiments or their voting
preferences, they are on the average substantially more
"wet," in the ideological sense, than men. At the most
basic, instinctive level, self-defense is an alien concept to
women, and since 1920 their votes have helped to shift the burden
of personal protection from the individual to the government.
Then there is the fact that in the early years of North
American settlement the flow of immigrants was not only entirely
White (not counting the slaves imported from Africa, of course),
but it consisted of a tougher, more independent breed than in
recent years. People came to America from Europe seeking freedom, adventure,
or opportunity; but certainly no one came looking for a handout,
because everyone understood that there were no handouts
available. As the country became more urban, however, the stream
of immigrants began to include more of the wretched refuse of
various teeming shores yearning to receive welfare checks, and
the politicians began looking to the public treasury as a source
of funds for buying votes. The consequence has been the growth of
an urban underclass of citizens dependent on the government in
one way or another: citizens who always are ready to increase
their dependency on the government and to trade freedom for the
promise of more security.
The Mass Media Hate Guns:
Here's Why
All three of the factors above have to do with the changing
character of the U.S. electorate, and they are important reasons
for the declining fortunes of the Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. They are dwarfed to insignificance by a fourth
factor, however, and that factor is the growth in the degree of influence on
public opinion of the Jews through their control of the mass
media of information and entertainment.
Both the Jewish control of the media and the media bias
against the citizen's right to keep and bear arms are generally
recognized but seldom discussed publicly, for fear of the charge
of "anti-Semitism." Also manifest but inadequately
publicized is the Jewish leadership of the legislative drive to
restrict or abolish the private ownership of firearms. The names
of the principal anti-Second Amendment legislators -- Feinstein, Metzenbaum,
Schumer -- tell part of the story, and the anti-gun lobbying
organizations, of which the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai
B'rith -- the ADL -- is the most powerful, tell the rest.
When a "group of concerned citizens" or an
association of mayors or chiefs of police issues a statement to the
press calling for the banning of firearms as a way of reducing
violence in America's cities, a close examination nearly always
will reveal the hidden hand of the ADL. Especially insidious has been
the ADL's use of local, state, and federal police agencies as
front groups. For the past two decades the ADL has been lobbying
actively for a group of what it calls "model statutes"
restricting firearms ownership and penalizing what it deems to be
"hate crimes" perpetrated by Whites against members of
minority groups. Typically the ADL will have a police official or
two in tow when it shows up at a state legislature to lobby for
one of these politically oriented laws.
The ADL's program to subvert police departments was revealed
in late 1992 when a San Francisco police inspector, Thomas
Gerard, was arrested for illegally selling confidential police
investigative files to the ADL. Police searches of ADL offices in
San Francisco and Los Angeles in April of last year turned up
evidence of widespread corruption of police agencies around the
country by the ADL. Brave indeed is the local police chief who
will turn away an ADL emissary who visits his office with a
couple of the community's leading Jewish businessmen and requests
the chief's endorsement of a "model statute" banning semiautomatic
firearms.
Now, far less obvious than the fact of Jewish leadership of
the drive to ban the private ownership of firarms is the reason
for this Jewish activity. The reason is the so-called "New
World Order," a subject I've spoken about several times
before on American Dissident Voices. To put it very briefly, the New World
Order is a utopian system in which the U.S. economy will be
"globalized," the wage levels of U.S. workers will be brought
down to those of workers in the Third World, national boundaries
will for all practical purposes cease to exist, an increased flow
of Third World immigrants into the United States will have
produced a non-White majority in the country, and United Nations
"peace keeping" forces will be used to keep anyone from opting
out of the system.
To be sure, Jews are not the only ones behind this scheme for
a New World Order. It appeals to egalitarians, many of them
Christians, who are tormented by the fact that most of the
population of the Third World lives in a state of perpetual
squalor and poverty. They really believe that the unfavorable condition
of these non-White masses is not due to any innate inferiority.
They really believe that these masses can and should be lifted up
to a White level, and that it's worth pulling the White living
standard down in order to equalize everyone. And, of course, it
appeals to many people in the upper echelons of Big Business, who are
entranced by the prospect of paying lower wages and exporting
their goods to a bigger market. It was considerations of this
sort which gave us the unholy alliance of egalitarian ideologues and
international capitalists who backed the recently adopted North
American Free Trade Agreement.
Equality and so-called "free trade" aside, one
salient feature of the New World Order is a greatly increased degree
of centralization of power and of governmental control over the
lives of ordinary citizens. This means a greatly increased
importance for the mass media of news and entertainment. Whoever
controls the mass media and is therefore able to manipulate the
attitudes and opinions of the great masses of people will, for all
practical purposes, be able to steer the course taken by the New World
Order. This helps us to understand the virtually unanimous
enthusiasm of the Jews for the New World Order.
New World Order =
A Disarmed America
There are two prerequisites for safely bringing in the New
World Order. First, the people who are not convinced that
surrendering national sovereignty and permitting themselves to be
"equalized" with China's coolies and Mexico's peons are
good things must be silenced with "hate" laws designed
to criminalize any expression of fact or opinion which can be
considered "racist." Second, the same people must be disarmed, so
that they have no recourse but to obey the laws and remain
silent.
In the United States the number of people likely to take up
arms against an oppressive government is not large at this time.
We live in an age when comfort and safety are valued more highly
than freedom. If economic conditions worsen substantially,
however, those few willing to fight for freedom may persuade many
others who are more concerned with their pocketbooks than their
honor to take up arms as well, and if that happens the New World
Order will be in serious trouble.
What all the foregoing means is that the present drive to
disarm American citizens is motivated by a fear of rebellion, not
by a fear of crime.
The people in the media and the government beating the drums
for the New World Order understand that as the program of
"globalization" proceeds, millions of newly
dispossessed citizens will be angry and desperate. If these
citizens still have firearms in their possession, they may strike
at their despoilers.
Patriots need to understand this fact as well as their enemies
do, and they must not be bashful about stating it plainly and
forcefully. They need to drop the pretense that the purpose of
the Second Amendment is to protect the rights of hunters, target
shooters, and collectors of antique firearms. When Congressman Schumer
or Senator Metzenbaum holds a semiautomatic rifle or pistol up
for the television cameras and says that "no legitimate sportsman
needs a weapon like this," he is laughing up his sleeve at the
same time.
The needs of sportsmen and hobbyists are utterly without
importance or significance when compared with the two serious
needs served by the private ownership of firearms: the need of
the individual for weapons with which to protect his person, his
family, and his property against the growing hordes of criminals
in our disintegrating society; and the need of the patriot for
weapons with which to keep governmental tyranny in check.
America's Problem:
Race, Not Guns
There is another very important dimension to the change which
has brought Americans to the point that so many of them are eager
to surrender and beg for mercy. That is the racial dimension and
its relationship to the enormous increase in crime and violence
in America. Those who are able to remember America as it was
three or four decades ago remember a life as different from that
of today as day is from night. There were no drugs or gang
violence in the schools. There were no drive-by shootings.
Burglary and armed robbery were so rare that when such a crime
did occur it was the talk of the town for months afterward. Listeners
who find it difficult to believe that such an America ever
existed need only view a few motion pictures from the 1940s or
early 1950s: Look at the crowds on the streets that you see in
those films. Look at the students on the university campuses.
Look at the faces in the offices and factories. It was a White America.
America prior to the 1960s was a vastly gentler and kinder
country than it is today. The drugs and violence endemic in the
non-White community had not been permitted to spread to the White
community. White children still could play in fields or vacant
lots near their homes without fear. No one ever was killed or raped
on a school playground. But then the planners of the New World
Order decided that the time had come to begin transforming America,
to begin getting it ready to fit into their scheme of things. Blacks
and Whites must be integrated, without regard for the
consequences!
It is astonishing how easily White Americans permitted
themselves to be dispossessed in their own land. It is disgusting
how many of them collaborated in the campaign of genocide against
their own people -- and still do. Of course, the New World Order
boys had an immensely powerful weapon in their hands by the 1960s,
and they used it with deadly skill: television. Americans let
themselves be persuaded by the puppeteers manipulating the images
on their television screens that racial integration was
fashionable. And when the changes of the 1960s brought nothing
but evil, White Americans let themselves be persuaded that the
cure for the evil was more change of the same sort! If there is a
just God in heaven, he must laugh in scorn when he hears White
Americans whining now about drugs and crime and violence and how
they are afraid for the future.
Crime and violence came to America as a direct and immediate
consequence of the loss of racial homogeneity in American
society. When Blacks and other non-Whites were released from
their ghettos and came flooding into the White world they brought
their life-style of drugs, crime, and violence with them. And the
attitudes and behavior of Whites -- especially young Whites --
also changed. With the loss of racial and cultural homogeneity
went the loss of a sense of community. The world in which White
boys and girls were growing up became more alien, more hostile.
It was no longer their world. They no longer had a sense of family,
of belonging. They no longer had clear standards and models, no
longer a clear image of what was expected of them. When young
Whites lost their sense of belonging in the chaotic, racially
mixed world into which they suddenly were thrust in the 1960s and
1970s, many of them also lost their sense of responsibility to
that world. Immorality, crime, and violence increased among young
Whites as among Blacks. It was a natural and inevitable
consequence of the loss of homogeneity.
So what do we do about this horrible increase in crime and
violence which so frightens people? Well, we might think about
restoring the homogeneity and the sense of community White
Americans used to have. We might think about that, except that if
we said anything about it we would be immediately denounced by the
controlled media as "racists." Now to the average
TV-bred citizen, to be considered a racist is a fate worse than
death. He cannot blame the decline in the quality of American
life on a loss of homogeneity. He cannot blame racial mixing.
Powerful taboos forbid it. And so he is easily enough persuaded
by the manipulators behind his television screen to blame
firearms instead.
The manipulators understand this psychology all too well, and
they are exploiting it fully in their campaign to disarm
Americans. They are using the fear of soaring crime and violence
to stampede the frightened, unthinking voters into letting their
only means of protection from this crime and violence be taken
away from them -- into giving up their only means of settling
scores with the manipulators of the media and their collaborators
in the government who have made such a cesspool of America.
Crime and violence can only increase, of course, because
almost no one has the courage and honesty to discuss their real
causes, much less to do anything realistic about cleaning up the
mess that has been made of America. Therefore, the stampede will
continue until White Americans -- that is, the ones who obey all the
laws -- have been completely disarmed. I'll repeat that: The
present campaign to disarm Americans will not abate. Neither the controlled
media nor the government will back away from a goal of total disarmament of
the civilian population. They won't reach this goal in a single step,
but they'll continue taking steps until they do reach it. The
target now is semiautomatic rifles. Later it will be all
semiautomatic pistols. Then it will be other types of handguns.
After that it will be all firearms which hold more than three cartridges.
"That's all a sportsman really needs," they'll say. Then
it will be all firearms except muzzle-loaders. Somewhere along the
line, various types of ammunition will be banned. "Only a
criminal would want a cartridge like this," they'll say.
Before too many steps have been taken there will be compulsory
registration of all firearms and firearm owners, in order to
facilitate confiscation later.
This bleak prospect has a silver lining, and it's this: a very
substantial portion of gun owners will defy the government and
become outlaws rather than give up their weapons, if the
populations of California and New Jersey are at all
representative of the country as a whole. When bans on so-called "assault
rifles" were enacted in those two states fewer than 10% of
the people owning such weapons turned them in.
Bans of the California and New Jersey sort have a marvelously
salutary effect on the attitude of the people who refuse to
comply with the bans. Relatively few of these people are militant
patriots or committed revolutionaries. The great majority are
simply people who have enough character, enough backbone and common
sense, to refuse to let themselves be stampeded along with the
sheep into giving up their only effective means of self-defense
in a time of civil disorder. Most of them have been law-abiding
citizens all of their lives, and it is not an easy decision for
them to consciously disobey the law -- especially a law which could
send them to prison for years. They are not happy about being
forced to become outlaws. Once they have crossed that bridge,
however, they should have a much healthier attitude toward the
government. Most will see it thenceforth as their enemy. Many
will be ready to fight it when the time comes for fighting.
They have passed the first test of manhood in the new world of
repression and revolution we are entering now. The more such
armed, angry outlaws the government makes, the better it will be
for all of us in the long run.
I'll leave you with this word: Don't do anything violent or
foolish. Don't do anything prematurely. We are in a very serious
situation, a situation of extreme danger for the future of our
race, and we must use the utmost prudence in dealing with it.
Keep your firearms out of sight, but within reach. The day
will come for using them. The day for a great cleansing of this
land will come. Until that day, keep your powder dry.
at
the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781