Many things divide White Americans: differing religious beliefs, differing life-styles and educational attainments, differing opinions as to whether the Democrats or the Republicans should be hanged first, differing tastes in music and art. Any issue one raises -- moral, political, or cultural -- will have some White Americans on one side and some on the other. A person with a cause may use any of these divisions for judging another person's likely partisanship: that man is a factory worker, so he probably will be opposed to lowering trade barriers against Third World products; or that man collects Louis Armstrong records, so he probably is on the wrong side of the racial question. For the patriot concerned about the preservation of his people's freedom or for the racially conscious person concerned about the survival of his race, however, there is hardly a more significant touchstone issue than that of gun control.
Among patriots one will find men and women raised in Catholic homes standing alongside freethinkers and persons raised as Presbyterians or Baptists. Among racially conscious White Americans, some are rock fans and some abhor rock music and the culture from which it sprang. But among persons devoted to freedom or those devoted to the survival and progress of the race one will find very few persons indeed who are in favor of surrendering their arms to the government. 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.
On the temperamental side of the matter, it may seem unfair to women to categorize the tendency to surrender as feminine and the tendency to fight as masculine, but at a very fundamental level this classification 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 greater than normal manifestation of feminine traits in men. It is not a pretty sight.
If we look at the matter ideologically, the salient fact is that, except for a relatively small minority of very sick persons who actually relish the idea of surrender and fantasize about being victimized by a "big, strong, brutally masculine" Black criminal, 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. Bill Clinton is a beloved father figure to them.
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 an Asian woman) 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 one 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.
Causes of the Divide
Who or what has created this divide among us? It certainly didn't exist a century ago. Then every White man was armed, and every woman expected him to be. The masochists and the inverts were such a tiny minority that, for all practical purposes, they didn't count. And 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?
There are a number of reasons for the change, some much more important than others. We'll examine them one at a time:
* 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 it also became less self-reliant.
* Until 1920 only men voted in the United States (except in elections for local offices in some jurisdictions). 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.
* 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; 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. Some of these people, living as they do in an especially violent environment, may feel an acute need of firearms for personal protection, but they have no appreciation of the relationship between political freedom and the right to keep and bear arms. They always are ready to increase their dependency on the government and to trade freedom for the promise of more security.
The Role of the Jews
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: the growth in the degree of influence on public opinion of the Jews through their control of the mass media of information and entertainment (see National Vanguard Books publication #491, Who Rules America?).
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 (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. Unlike other anti-gun groups, most of which seek publicity for their programs of gun control or gun confiscation, the ADL prefers to work behind the scenes, in part because many of its activities are illegal. It usually will assemble a front group of Christian ministers or local bureaucrats and politicians or other easily manipulated persons and use them as a "hired mouth" to advance the ADL agenda. The payoff for the members of the front group will be guaranteed favorable media coverage, expense-paid "fact finding" trips to Israel for group leaders, and, in the case of the politicians, generous campaign contributions.
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, prohibiting paramilitary training, 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 1993 turned up evidence of widespread corruption of police agencies around the country by the ADL. There was a flurry of publicity about the ADL's activities in the spring and early summer of 1993, but the ADL's formidable political clout was used to squelch incipient prosecutions, and its friends in the media sharply limited the information released to the public. Today the ADL continues its cosy relationship with hundreds of police agencies and corrupt police officials, providing racial and sexual "sensitivity" training for White police personnel, act-ing as a source of expert information on "White extremists," and using local police officials as fronts for its legislative program. Brave indeed is the 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.
Preparing for the New World Order
Far less obvious than the fact of Jewish leadership of the drive to ban the private ownership of firearms is the reason for this Jewish activity. In order to understand the latter one must examine more than the Jewish campaign against firearms owners. Indeed, one must uncover the entire Jewish agenda for America and the world. To epitomize this agenda: Jews are the prime movers behind the push for the so-called "New World Order," a system described elsewhere in this magazine.
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 or their freedom to take up arms as well, and then 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 Jews, along with the politicians and bureaucrats who have willingly collaborated with them, are increasingly concerned that they may be called to account by an outraged citizenry for the ruining of the nation. Bill and Hillary Clinton do not want to end up in a bloody ditch like Romania's Nicolae and Elena Ceaucescu. They know that as the New World Order 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. Crime, on the other hand, is no threat to people who live in closely guarded mansions and go everywhere surrounded by armed escorts.
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.
It is not a matter of chance that now, when Americans find themselves with more need than at any time since Colonial days for weapons both for personal self-defense and for resistance to tyranny, they also find so many of their fellow citizens morally degraded to the point that they are unwilling to defend either themselves or their liberty.
The Racial Factor
Another aspect of the way in which public opinion on the issue of firearms has been manipulated by the controlled media is the racial aspect. It is clear that the enormous increase in crime and violence in America's cities is closely related to America's changing racial complexion.
Those who are able to remember America as it was before the Second World War remember a life as different from that of today as day is from night. Drugs and gangs of Blacks, Puerto Ricans, or mestizos in the schools? Drive-by shootings? They didn't exist. Burglary and armed robbery were so rare that when such a crime did occur it was the talk of the town for months afterward. Readers who find it difficult to believe that such an America ever existed need only view a few motion pictures from the 1930s or early 1940s: Look at the crowds on the streets. Look at the students on the university campuses. Look at the faces in the offices and factories. It was a White America.
Even America in the 15 years between the war and 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! The immigration barriers must come down: bring in the wretched refuse as fast as the boats can unload them! The pattern of segregation protecting White neighborhoods and White schoolchildren must go! Strike down the laws against miscegenation! Down with apartheid, wherever it exists!
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, that Black music and the Black life-style were fashionable. Younger White Americans even let themselves be persuaded -- during the 1960s and 1970s, at least -- that drugs were fashionable. 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: much more!
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.
It is clear enough to any reasonable person who examines the facts that 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. 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. Many of them began behaving like Blacks. Immorality, crime, and violence increased among young Whites as among Blacks. It was a natural and inevitable consequence of the loss of homogeneity in their world.
Stampeding the Sheep
The increase in crime and violence is an explicable phenomenon. It is easy enough to understand. Unfortunately, human decisions seldom are based on reason. Even if one could persuade the average, TV-bred White American that the only way to eliminate the crime and violence in his world is to restore the sense of community which once existed, he would rebel against his own reason. He cannot blame the loss of homogeneity for the decline in the quality of American life. He cannot blame racial mixing. That would be racist! His reason is no more able to prevail against such a powerful, TV-generated taboo than the reason of his ancestors a thousand years ago was able to prevail against their fear of witches and demons.
Desperate for relief from the threat of violence around him and restrained by his taboos from placing the blame for that violence where it belongs, he is easily enough persuaded by the manipulators behind his television screen to blame firearms instead. Something must be done. Since he dare not even contemplate getting rid of the real cause of violence, then get rid of firearms!
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. Perhaps guns will become more difficult for criminals to acquire; perhaps the victims of crime will be happier having their throats cut than being shot. Life, however, will only become grimmer for White Americans, as they approach minority status in the coming century, with no means for defending themselves, either individually or collectively.
There are well-meaning fools among the White population who really believe that the Jews will come to their senses and reverse their stand on gun control when they understand that it won't solve the crime problem. The Jews, of course, already understand that quite well. They also understand that they have a tiger by the tail and dare not let go. They must take away from the White population the tools of rebellion before the consequences of their New World Order campaign hit home in full. If armed, racially conscious Whites ever again gain the upper hand in America no place on earth will be safe for the Jews.
Other fools believe that the Jews' collaborators in the government will wake up and stop collaborating when they see where things are heading; after all, they're White too. Actually, the collaborators -- people like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, Lloyd Bentsen, Al Gore, Daniel Moynihan, Louis Freeh, and a thousand others of their ilk -- don't particularly care where things are heading, except as it affects their careers and personal fortunes. They're all hoping that they'll be able to die comfortably in bed before the reckoning comes. But, like the Jews, they know that if the people they have lied to and betrayed ever get control of the situation, the reward for traitors will be a bloody ditch. That's the kind of government we have.
What the Future Holds
To reiterate: The present campaign to disarm Americans will not abate. Neither the Jews 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 ("assault rifles," to use the misnomer of the controlled media), because those are the only weapons with real revolutionary potential: they certainly are not weapons used by muggers or holdup men. 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 (because "that's all a sportsman really needs"). 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").
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: 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 "assault rifles" were enacted in those two states very few rifles were registered or turned in during the amnesty period.
A California state law passed in 1989 gave the estimated 300,000 owners of "assault weapons" in the state until January 1, 1991, to register them and banned all further sales. When the deadline passed only 19,000 gun owners -- about six per cent -- had complied.
New Jersey gun owners proved themselves made of even sterner stuff. A law was passed in that state in May 1990 banning the possession of semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and providing for a five-year prison sentence for anyone found in possession of such a weapon after June 1, 1991. Banned weapons were to be turned over to the state police, disposed of outside the state, or rendered inoperable and then registered with the state. Certain specified semiautomatic rifles could be kept by gun club members if they were used only for target shooting at the clubs. By the end of 1991 only four rifles had been turned over to the state police. Another 888 rifles had been certified as inoperable, and 947 had been registered as target rifles by members of gun clubs.
Altogether the two laws resulted in the creation of an estimated half-million armed outlaws in California and New Jersey. Some media spokesmen howled for roundups of suspected ban defiers. Criminals currently incarcerated in the state prisons could be released to make room for persons found to have disobeyed the "assault rifle" ban, they suggested, again showing that it is armed patriots, not street criminals, the Jews really fear.
Such results suggest that when the government finally gets around to launching Turner Diaries-style "gun raids" it will have a lot more people to deal with than it can comfortably lock up. Bans of the California and New Jersey sort also 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 revolution-aries. The great majority are simply people who have enough character 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 five 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 as their enemy. Many will be ready to fight it when the time comes for fighting.
In nearly every case, having once steeled themselves to defy the government and one of its laws they are in a much better frame of mind to defy the government in other matters as well, because they already have overcome their awe and fear of the government. They have passed the first test of manhood in the new world of repression and revolution we are entering. The more such armed, angry outlaws the government makes, the better.
With this understanding of matters, we can make a few additional predictions:
* There will be more subway massacres as the disarmament of the civilian population proceeds. The feminine approach to race relations only encourages aggression against Whites. In South Africa, as Whites gave up trying to keep their country and prepared to hand it over to Blacks, emboldened Blacks, having lost their respect for and fear of Whites, stepped up their terrorist attacks. A similar process will occur in America: as Whites disarm themselves in response to soaring Black violence, Blacks will attack them more frequently and more violently. The good side of this is that the more attacks there are on Whites in the short run, the more Whites will decide to defy the government's gun control efforts in the long run. Colin Ferguson's slaughter of five Whites on a New York subway train may end up saving thousands of White lives during the next major breakdown of order.
* The black market in firearms will expand substantially, driven by much the same economic forces as those driving the trade in illegal drugs. One big difference, however, is that the government will be much more forceful in its efforts to stop the illegal trade in firearms than it ever has been in its inept "war on drugs." The reason, of course, is that drug dealers and drug users are not interested in revolution; a corrupt government, in fact, is a necessity for them.
* The government's mechanism for repression will increase substantially during the next decade. There is much talk now about "putting more policemen on the street," ostensibly to reduce crimes of violence, but much of the government's law enforcement effort will go instead into various political police agencies, along the lines of the FBI and the BATF: plainclothes groups with sophisticated intelligence-gathering equipment and a mandate to keep Politically Incorrect groups and individuals -- including those who have refused to turn in their guns -- under control. Fortunately, other forces will be at work to limit the effectiveness of these repressive efforts.
The most significant struggle of the next decade may well be the one between the armed enforcers of the New World Order on one side and illegally armed patriots on the other. As mentioned above, most Whites who decline to obey present or future gun-control laws will not be patriots -- at least, not until social and economic conditions worsen substantially. For that reason patriots will be obliged to conduct themselves with discretion. They cannot win in any direct, armed confrontation with the government until such time as the government's ability to defend itself has been reduced by other means.
That time may not be far off. The controlled media try to maintain a brave and optimistic front, but the cracks in the government's facade grow visibly larger by the month. The Jews' perverse dream of world rule through the New World Order, just like the egalitarians' unnatural vision of a forcibly equalized world population, already is turning into a nightmare for millions of people. The United Nations "peace keepers" can machine-gun only so many groups of uppity natives into submission at one time and still retain their "good guy" image, and similar constraints apply to the U.S. government's ability to keep its increasingly alienated, heterogeneous, and uncivil population under control.
Patriots who may be discouraged by their relatively small numbers should keep this in mind: It is not their percentage of the overall population which matters, or their numbers relative to those of various non-White minority groups, but only their strength relative to that of the government's armed enforcers. The unarmed members of the population, Black or White, simply don't count. Their only roles will be as spectators and victims.
Nor should patriots anguish over the prospect of large numbers of unarmed White persons at the mercy of rioting Blacks in the cities as economic and social conditions worsen. Whites who have failed to provide for their own protection or voluntarily given up their weapons deserve no sympathy. Any diminution of their numbers will be eugenic for the race as a whole.
Patriots really have more in common with their opposite numbers among the government's mercenaries than they do with the fearful masses who have chosen surrender rather than resistance. At this time, unfortunately, what the two groups have in common isn't much: a somewhat more manly attitude than average, but very little in the way of mutual sympathy. Throughout our history mercenaries nearly always have identified with their paymasters and have done without compunction or regret whatever they were paid to do, no matter how atrocious. Those who carried out the massacre at Waco in 1993, for example, showed no reluctance to commit mass murder and gave no evidence of sympathy for their victims, despite the large number of women and children among the latter.
Nevertheless, mercenaries, like everyone else, prefer to be on the winning side. As disorder increases and the government's grip on the situation continues to slip, some of them will have second thoughts about where their own interests lie. After all, many of them have wives and children, and the type of world their grandchildren will live in may be a matter of increasing concern to them. As for the rest, they should be aware that when the time comes for settling scores Nuremberg rules will apply: excuses that "I was only following orders" won't be acceptable. In any event, it will behoove patriots to keep open the lines of communication and perhaps even do a little recruiting in the enemy camp from time to time.
The task for the immediate future is preparation. It is much better to equip oneself now with the means of self-defense -- and the means of combatting tyranny -- than it is to wait until doing so becomes illegal, difficult, and much more expensive. One should think ahead in every way, not just about the difficulties that the government's gun control efforts will cause.
One should consider, for example, the types of situations requiring the use of firearms which are likely to arise in the future and not just situations which are likely now. That old .45 pistol under the pillow may be all that ever will be needed for dealing with a burglar, but in times of civil disorder a lot more firepower will be helpful. Every White household should have, at the very least, a riot gun or the civilian equivalent (a 12-gauge, pump-action or autoloading shotgun with an extended magazine and a barrel cut down to 20 inches); a semiautomatic rifle in a military caliber (.308 in., .223 in., or 7.62x39 mm) with a detachable magazine; and a large-caliber handgun for each adult. A minimum of 500 cartridges for each weapon should be available.
Another consideration is keeping one's weapons out of the government's hands. The people who are trying now to scuttle the Second Amendment would like to do away with the First and the Fourth Amendments as well. Almost certainly, however, it will be another three or four years before they can routinely ignore the Fourth Amendment's requirements of probable cause, supported by the sworn statement of a witness, and a specific description of the contraband being sought when they want to search a citizen's home or place of business for arms. It is important during those next three or four years, therefore, to keep one's arms out of sight even in one's own home, so that there will be no witnesses who can say to the secret police, "I was in So-and-so's home last Thursday, and I saw a semiautomatic rifle in his bedroom closet."
Farsighted citizens will think ahead further and make plans now for keeping their arms available but secure even after the demise of the Fourth Amendment.
Finally, let every citizen who values his right to keep and bear arms be certain of this: the present attack by the government and the controlled media on the Second Amendment is not something to be dealt with in isolation. It is part and parcel of a larger scheme, and anyone who wants to fight it effectively must be willing to fight against this larger scheme as well.
This admonition will not be welcome to those who are unwilling to take the risk of being called "racists" or "anti-Semites." Many citizens are willing to speak out for their Second Amendment rights, because that is still semi-respectable: the worst they can expect is being labeled "gun cranks" or "gun nuts." They know, however, that if they speak out on the racial aspect of the violence and criminality plaguing our cities, or if they ask why Jews are so nearly unanimous in their support for both the New World Order and gun control, they will expose themselves to a torrent of hatred from the media and from the ranks of the Politically Correct. And so they remain silent, and thereby they abdicate their responsibility as citizens and as adult members of their race.
The time for politeness and for avoiding offense is past. This is a time for forthrightness and for truth -- the whole truth. The stakes are far too great for anything less. The time also is past for selfishness. No man who stands alone can prevail against those who are determined to destroy us all. No man can be safe, no matter how many guns he has and no matter how well hidden they are, when the government takes away all his neighbors' guns. This is a time for organization and for concerted action.
It is not yet a time, however, for violence or for overt illegality in the defense of our rights. It is a time for preparation and for prudence and for forbearance. The time for fighting will come later: the time for cleansing our land with fire. It is inevitable. Until then, let us speak the truth, stay out of trouble, and keep our powder dry.
(This article was originally published in NATIONAL VANGUARD Magazine, PO Box 330, Hillsboro WV 24946 USA. Fax # 304-653-4690 $2 for complete catalog)