By Dr. William L. Pierce
from National Vanguard Issue No. 65, 1978
Probably the greatest piece of foolishness current in America, after the notion that all the country’s citizens are inherently “equal,” is the belief that they are collectively capable of governing themselves wisely.
Wisdom and will are individual, not collective attributes, yet so steeped have we all become in democratic mythology that we personify the crowd, imagining that it possesses both. We seem to believe, along with the late Chairman Mao, that the ultimate repository of civic virtue is “the masses.”
The populist daydream, indulged in by rightists and leftists alike, is of a long-suffering, commonsensical American citizenry which, if left alone by the gangsters in Washington, could manage to keep the country’s wheels turning, maintain the common defense, and restore domestic tranquility, all through a sort of popular consensus.
The daydreamers of the right see the current enthusiasm for tax-reduction referendums as a manifestation of the people’s ability to spontaneously correct the excesses of government, just as those of the left saw a similar manifestation in Richard Nixon’s plunge from favor and consequent resignation after the Watergate revelations. The people, they think, will tolerate only so much foolishness or wickedness on the part of their leaders before rising up in their righteous wrath and homespun wisdom and setting things right again.
I recently read the unpublished manuscript of a piece of revolutionary fiction written by an aide to a conservative legislator. The story described a spontaneous uprising by America’s citizens’-band radio users. One morning the citizens just decided they’d had enough. Using small arms, their automobiles and trucks, and their CB radios, they took the country away from the politicians and the minority pressure groups.
No organization, no leaders, just a revolution. Once started, it just grew; as the word spread over the CB airwaves, more and more citizens joined in. The Jews were hunted down and dispatched by vigilante groups, while the Blacks, seeing the handwriting on the wall, quickly shed their uppityness and shuffled out of harm’s way.
A pleasant enough daydream, to be sure, and typical of those dreamed up by other right wingers. Three essential elements of all such daydreams are: 1) no fundamental changes are wrought, except settling the hash of the bad guys, because right wingers don’t really want any other fundamental changes; 2) the citizens who settle the bad guys’ hash do it spontaneously and anonymously, because that way no one has to stick his neck out; 3) there is a revolutionary consensus among at least a majority of the citizenry, so that the revolutionaries can maintain their good-guy, will-of-the-people self-image.
Unfortunately, such daydreams have little relationship to reality. There is, in the first place, no consensus among White Americans, revolutionary or otherwise. I would wager that a poll taken among CB users would find about the same proportion of citizens who voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 as in the general population.
The same lack of consensus exists among somewhat more politically oriented groups, such as Proposition 13 enthusiasts, for example; a common dislike for taxes should not be seen as indicative of any deeper philosophical accord, just as a generalized resentment toward governmental favoritism for racial minority groups should not be seen as indicative of a general agreement on racial matters.
Put any dozen disgruntled White taxpayers in a room and you’ll hear a dozen different explanations of what’s wrong with the country and what should be done about it. If there is anything even faintly resembling a consensus among them, it is one manufactured by the controlled media; they are just as afraid of the taboos the media has set up as the average citizen is.
That’s why not a single one of the tax-revolt groups will take a forthright stand on race, just as none dares pinpoint the blame for a major share of America’s present economic problems on her Jew-controlled foreign policy and the quadrupling of imported oil prices which resulted from that policy.
Although spokesmen for the more rabid pro-minority groups, such as Americans for Democratic Action, openly declare that tax revolt is anti-Black and that the tax rebels themselves are fascists and racists who want to make non-White welfare mothers get a job so they can’t continue to breed 24 hours a day, the media masters have not gone so far. To express displeasure with taxes is still a permissible, if somewhat risqué, activity. But overt racism or any criticism of the Jews is strictly taboo, and the tax rebels are careful to toe the line in that regard.
And it is wrong to think that the public’s failure to face and take a stand on the really vital issues of race and minority control is only a surface phenomenon, while inside the citizens are seething with resentment against those who have imposed the taboos. A few certainly are, but by no means “the masses.”
Part of the reason for the lack of a White revolutionary consensus is ignorance. Most Americans—including most of those who know something is seriously wrong with the country—don’t have the basic facts needed to come to the correct conclusions.
Probably not more than one American in 10 is more than vaguely aware that the news and entertainment media are effectively under minority control. The ruckus raised by former Vice President Spiro Agnew and others about the Jewish domination of the media just hasn’t sunk in. And certainly not more than one in 10 of those who do know about Jewish media control—i.e., not more than one per cent of the general population—really understands its full significance.
There is a similarly appalling degree of ignorance on other vital matters. If you stopped 100 people at random on the street and queried them about the relationship between the increasing number of non-Whites in the U.S. labor force and the failure of industrial productivity to increase, or about the relationship between productivity and the average American standard of living, how many do you think would be able to give you more than an uncomprehending stare? My guess is, not more than two or three.
Even on matters which have been publicized to a certain extent through the controlled media, such as the horrendous influx of non-Whites into the United States in recent years from Mexico, the Pacific, and the Caribbean, there is a general state of misunderstanding and ignorance.
One of the things the National Alliance is doing about this unfortunate situation, of course, is disseminating facts. Each issue of National Vanguard sows a few thousand more seeds of enlightenment into a vast expanse of ignorance.
But if the education of the public were the sole key to White survival, we would surely be lost. The controlled media, the churches, the schools, and the government are pouring out deliberate disinformation on such a prodigious scale that the efforts of a few thousand racially conscious Whites to stem this flood are simply hopeless. Seven evenings a week, four weeks a month, John Chancellor and Walter Cronkite reach more than 1,000 times as many Americans as this newspaper does once a month.
No, we do not delude ourselves into thinking that we are “educating the public.” The seeds we sow may contribute a tiny amount to that end, but that is not their principal purpose. Anyway, even if we could reach as many Americans as John Chancellor and Walter Cronkite do, and as often, facts are nor enough; it is not merely ignorance that causes Americans to act as they do and prevents the consensus which would allow the public to straighten out our national and racial affairs.
The National Alliance receives a steady trickle of letters from White Americans who have read a National Vanguard for the first time or who have seen our article “The Masters of the Media” reproduced on a leaflet and whose reaction is, so what? “If Jews are better organized and know how to handle money better than Gentiles do, why then they should be running the country,” these writers argue. “After all, we believe in free enterprise, don’t we?”
This sort of rugged capitalism carries with it the smell of, “I’m doing all right for myself, Jack, so let’s not knock the System. It’s no skin off my back if the Jews are encouraging racial mixing, because I won’t be around to have to live in a mongrelized America, anyway.”
Fortunately, such overt egoism is characteristic of only a minority of the most alienated Whites, but it is nevertheless symptomatic of the widespread and growing confusion of values among the public. It does little good to inform people of the threat to the future of their race, when they are not really sure they care whether their race survives or not.
It is a sad fact that most White Americans today, when confronted with an issue like that of non-White immigration, don’t really have the values needed to justify the tough decision which is required. As long as they feel that they themselves are not immediately and personally threatened by the alien flood, they find it easier to mumble some platitude about there being “room enough for everybody” in America, even when they know it’s not true, than to take a position which might subject them to official disapproval.
Racially oriented right wingers who imagine that their concerns for the future are shared by the majority of Americans are simply wrong—and so are those who imagine that all that is needed for a White consensus is to inform the people of the dangers ahead. Public opinion—and the fundamental values on which it rests—depend on more than facts.
As I mentioned above, we tend to be misled by the current democratic mythology into assuming some things about the average man which are incorrect. One of these things is that he can think for himself. The great majority of people, even if they have this latent ability, have never used it. They have always let others do their thinking for them.
Until about a century ago—and even later in many parts of America—people formed their opinions almost exclusively through their daily interactions with their immediate neighbors. In the marketplace, at the village school or church, in the blacksmith’s shop and the general store, among the hands in the fields and the members of one’s own family, there was the continuous exchange of feelings, impressions, experiences, and, especially, traditional concepts, all of which shaped the individual’s view of the world in general and his opinion on any subject in particular.
Neither a man’s religion nor his politics was the product of any rational process, but was determined almost always by the religion or the politics of those around him. There was a consensus—perhaps not a national consensus, including the inhabitants of geographically different areas with markedly different life-styles, but, at least, a number of local consensuses.
The real world was a man’s village and the surrounding countryside. From these he received nearly all his impressions. Anything as far as a hundred miles away was not entirely real. Even in the towns, where there may have been such exotic influences as newspapers, the writers and editors of those newspapers were of the same race as their fellow townspeople and generally shared the same consensus.
Thus, from antiquity until fairly recent times, a man’s mental connections were with his immediate neighbors, the village nexus (to coin a phrase) was the source of human consensus. This consensus might—and generally did—include patent absurdities and bizarre superstitions, local eccentricities and passing fads, along with the genuine wisdom of the ages. It was an organic consensus, however, and generally quite resistant to alien influences.
But the village nexus has now been broken almost everywhere in America and the rest of the industrialized West, and a new mental connection is taking its place: the central nexus. Urbanization, the tearing loose of the people from their roots in the soil, the depersonalization of work, alienation—this complex of developments has been treated by scholars a thousand times over during the last century, and another treatment will not be given here.
But the central nexus itself, which is an outgrowth of these developments, is easy enough to understand. Millions of Americans, whose great-grandparents lived all their lives on the same farm or in the same village and knew intimately all their neighbors, today live in high-rise apartments, change addresses every 4.3 years on the average, and don’t even know the name of the family in the apartment across the hall. In our larger cities, in many cases, they may not even be able to speak the language of the family across the hall.
Under these conditions the TV set, with its packaged-in-New York network programs, has taken the place of the bull session in the blacksmith’s shop; the big-city daily newspaper, with its “news” filtered through the national wire services, the place of the parish church; the cinema, presenting the latest product of the Hollywood film industry, the place of the general store; the glass-and-concrete educational emporium, with its state-coordinated text and curricula, the place of the little, red schoolhouse; the night club, with its rock band and Jewish comedian and strangers at every table, the place of the Saturday night barn dance among neighbors.
The transition is not yet complete, of course. People still talk about politics and race and other issues at the office, in the barbershop, in the plant, in the school cafeteria, and across the backyard fence.
But the trend is quite unmistakable. For all practical purposes people’s opinions are determined these days by the central nexus rather than by the village nexus. And the central nexus is neither organic nor resistant to alien influences.
In fact, as our article, “The Masters of the Media” demonstrates, the central nexus, with its flow of information outward from a few hubs to millions of individuals whose connections to their neighbors have been severed, is ideally suited to infiltration and manipulation by any well-organized minority—and that is exactly what has happened.
The Jews did not plan or cause the transition from the village nexus to the central nexus, but they have certainly taken advantage of it to steer the thinking of the American people into channels compatible with Jewish interests.
So far as public opinion—the “thinking” of the masses—is concerned, there is no way to beat the central nexus. The average man will believe what John Chancellor tells him rather than what we tell him, because he can easily reassure himself that John Chancellor is telling the truth just by switching channels and noting that Walter Cronkite is saying the same thing.
More important, he will adopt the basic values that his newspaper and his favorite weekly news magazine and the characters in his favorite television serial assure him are the values of all but a lunatic fringe of his peers. He will learn all the clichés with which he “thinks” from Little House on the Prairie and The Late Show.
Unless one can continuously bombard him with an equal volume of different clichés—that is, unless one can establish an alternate central nexus—one cannot hope to build a new consensus among him and the rest of the White citizenry. And, of course, one cannot establish an alternate central nexus with anything less than all the gold in Fort Knox plus all the petrodollars in Riyadh.
That is why none of the right-wing schemes for White salvation currently being promoted will work. The majority of the White population will not act spontaneously to save themselves, because that’s not the way the central nexus has programmed them to act.
The foregoing comments do not reflect pessimism and should not cause pessimism in any but those unalterably wedded to a pet right-wing project. But we must understand that majority-based solutions are not feasible under present conditions, so that we can focus our efforts on a program for survival that will work.
Any such program requires a consensus, of course, which in turn requires a new nexus. Since we cannot have a majority consensus, then we must do what we can with a minority consensus.
We can build a minority consensus through an organizational nexus, and we will see how that is done and what its significance is in future issues of National Vanguard.
Meanwhile, there is no intention to disparage the racially conscious elements among the tax rebels, or any other White people with sound motives. But they must eventually be made to understand that without a consensus based on an organizational nexus all their efforts are utterly in vain.