Tuesday, November 29, 2011

The Destruction of the Academy

From National Vanguard Magazine Issue No. 112, January-February 1992:

The debate over the enforcement of Political Correctness at American colleges and universities has been raging in the print media long enough that everyone from the party-loving frathouse jock to the most uncool computer nerd on campus has been made at least dimly aware that he must be careful what he says when talking about anything even remotely racial or sexual in nature.

One must never use the word "girl" in referring to any female over 10 years of age or the word "boy" in referring to a Black male of any age. (And one must not use the word "Black" either, which is considered by the most Politically Correct thinkers to be almost as offensive as "Negro," "darky," or "nigger"; the only acceptable designation now is "African American.")

Homosexuals must never be referred to as "queers," "lesbos," "dykes," "fruits," "faggots," "fairies," or anything else but "gays" (except when the speaker is himself or herself of the sodomite persuasion: "queer" is now in vogue as a self-descriptive term among the pervert avant garde).

If one really wants to be on the safe side, he also should use the term "Politically Correct" (or its abbreviation, "PC") as sparingly as possible -- and certainly never with a smile on his face or a hint of derision in his voice -- lest he indicate that he is one of those benighted souls whom the Red Guardist cadres of Political Correctness have been charged with re-educating. The PC position is that there is now and never has been a program to enforce Political Correctness, and that the term itself was invented by bigots and reactionaries to stigmatize progressive, right-thinking folks.

Does that sound a bit Orwellian? Alas, Orwell himself would be dumbfounded by the present state of affairs on our campuses. At the University of Connecticut students may be expelled for "conspicuous exclusion [of a female, non-White, or homosexual student] from conversation" or for "inappropriately directed laughter"; i.e., laughter at a "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic" joke or at or about a woman or a member of a protected minority group in a way which might cause embarrassment or injured feelings. Although the University of Connecticut conduct code doesn't spell it out, perhaps an inappropriately directed smirk or smile or grin would draw the same penalty as actual laughter, especially for a repeat or unapologetic offender. Remember Orwell's definition of "facecrime"?

At the University of Minnesota six professors recently were charged with sexual harassment. The specifics of the charges included such offenses as not greeting a female student in a friendly enough manner, not teaching in a sensitive enough way, and not having read a certain feminist-favored novel. Eventually the charges were dropped, but only after the professors had been subjected to an ordeal of calumny and intimidation and had gone to great lengths of grovelling and self-abasement to prove themselves innocent of any non-PC tendencies.

At the University of Michigan a student who recited a limerick which speculated jokingly about the homosexuality of a well known athlete was required to attend "gay-sensitivity" training sessions and write a letter of self-criticism for publication in the campus newspaper, under threat of expulsion.

Pages could be filled with similar outrageous -- or amusing or alarming -- anecdotes about the excesses of Political Correctness, but anecdotes alone, no matter how outrageous, cannot give us a full understanding of the disaster which has befallen our universities. Many people have the belief that the enforcement of Political Correctness is simply an effort by well-intentioned university administrators to keep the peace on campuses with increasing numbers of minority students: that the main thrust of their effort has been to restrain uncivil students from using expressions like "kike" or "nigger" or "queer" or "bitch" in referring to their fellow students, thereby giving offense and disrupting the orderly climate of learning. People with this belief generally regard anecdotes of the sort cited here as evidence that in a few cases the efforts to maintain civility have become a little overzealous and have gone a little too far in the direction of restricting speech and other forms of expression. They tend to believe that what we need to do is guard against these excesses and protect the freedoms of students and faculty members to protect their First Amendment rights -- within reasonable limits, of course.

Such people miss the whole point. The drive for Political Correctness is not an overzealous effort to maintain an orderly learning environment at our universities; on the contrary, it is a manifestation of the determination of certain elements inside and outside the universities to insure that the universities not be permitted to perform their traditional function of educating and civilizing a leadership elite for the next generation of Americans.


[T]he cant and humbug of Political Correctness are largely confined to the humanities, the "soft" sciences...


To be sure, there is among the PC cadres an element motivated primarily by the desire to maintain civility -- or, rather, to avoid giving offense. There always have been those excessively tender-minded souls who flinch at the very thought of saying anything which might hurt someone else's feelings. A cripple must never be referred to matter of factly as a cripple, but as a "physically disadvantaged person'; a man who likes to bugger little boys must under no circumstances be made to feel that his behavior is considered distasteful, unnatural, or contrary to the public interest; a woman must not be reminded that she is in any way different from a man, because that might limit her self-image and lead her to resign herself to motherhood and housewifery instead of pursuing a career as a corporate raider or a mud wrestler; a Black -- oops, an African American -- must not be laughed at or even gently corrected when, full of the absurdities and pufferies of one of the "Black history" courses now being offered at most major universities, he proudly claims that Hannibal and Cleopatra were of his race.

Solicitude for the feelings of others and the avoidance of unnecessary offense always have been characteristics of a gentleman. Women traditionally have gone a bit further and put a high premium on being "nice," even at the expense of truth. Elevating niceness to the ultimate virtue, however, has become possible only in a society which has completely lost its moral bearings. Such niceness is the virtue of emasculated men and women deranged by the ravings of the feminists.


Women traditionally have gone a bit further and put a high premium on being "nice," even at the expense of truth.

Such niceness is the principal motivation of only a relatively tiny element among the cadres of Political Correctness, however, even though it plays a substantially larger role among the camp followers of the movement. The cadres themselves are recruited mainly from the ranks of the radical feminists, the militant homosexuals, and the racial-minority activists (Blacks, mestizos, Asians, Amerindians, etc.). Their ranks are supplemented by a sprinkling of very sick White males hoping to atone through self-flagellation for their sins of Whiteness and maleness, a few die-hard Marxists who have established a final redoubt in America's universities, and a very significant contingent of Jews -- about whom more later.

The sayings and writings of these cadres, taken as a whole, leave no doubt that their aim goes far beyond protecting the sensibilities of hypersensitive minorities. One of the main thrusts of the Political Correctness movement has been to stamp out what they call "Eurocentrism" in university curricula. Their contention is that traditional curricula, freighted as they are with the writings of "dead White European males" -- "dwems" for short -- are not only irrelevant to the needs of today's university students but are absolutely harmful.

PC Professor Stanley Hauerwas of the Duke University Divinity School complains, "The canon of great literature was created by High Anglican assholes to underwrite their social class."

A Politically Correct committee at Tulane University has prepared a report on "race and gender enrichment" which laments: "It is difficult for us to see and overcome racism and sexism because we are all the progeny of a racist and sexist society."

There is, of course, truth in the assertion of Tulane's Red Guardists about the nature of European society. Pick almost any White male writer of prominence from any era prior to the Second World War, and you can be practically certain that his message will be tainted with racism, sexism, homophobia, paternalism, patriarchism, imperialism, or some other streng verboten "ism."

Open Virgil's great epic from the first century before this era, and the first words we see are, "Of arms and the man I sing..." Not "Of arms and the person": clearly a male-centered, sexist screed.

Fourteen hundred years later Geoffrey Chaucer still was writing in the same vein, of a husband invited to keep tally of debts on the tail of his wife and a "cursed Jew" who slit the throat of a Christian child in an act of ritual murder. 
Geoffrey Chaucer [wrote] of ... a "cursed Jew" who slit the throat of a Christian child in an act of ritual murder.


A century and a half after Chaucer the great Martin Luther was writing of the Jews: "The sun has never shined on such a bloodthirsty and vindictive people, who cherish the idea of murdering and strangling the Gentiles. No other men under the sun are more greedy than they have been, and always will be, as one can see from their accursed usury. They console themselves that when their Messiah comes he will collect all the gold and silver in the world and divide it among them."

Toward the end of the 16th century William Shakespeare was writing of the Jew Shylock and his demand for a pound of flesh.

In the 18th century we may be tempted to peek into the works of the Founding Fathers -- oops! make that the Founding Parents. Thomas Jefferson wrote that Whites and Blacks were so manifestly different that they could never live as equals in the same society. Benjamin Franklin's often quoted  advice on choosing a mistress would send today's feminists into orbit.

In Germany at the same time (and well into the next century) Wolfgang von Goethe was inspiring his own countrymen with his patriotic writing. We could nail him for sexism, racism, or any of a half-dozen other heresies. For example: "The important thing is that the race remain pure: in this way we become a people! And only in this way will we be able to preserve and enhance the German character."

Moving further into the 19th century, we can look into the works of the better known and better loved English language writers. Take Edgar Allen Poe. One needs go no further than the third paragraph of what is probably his bestknown tale, The Gold Bug: "In these excursions he was usually accompanied by an old Negro, called Jupiter...who could be induced, neither by threats nor by promises, to abandon what he considered his right of attendance upon his young "Massa Will.'"

Or how about Rudyard Kipling? Do we want to know what secrets lurk in the covetous heart of "dark Israel"? We'll find that in his Song of the Fifth River, among other places, Do we want White supremacy? Here is a snippet from his poem A Song of the White Men: "...Well for the world when the White men drink to the dawn of the White Man's day!" Do we want imperialism? We'll find it in nearly everything he wrote.

Charles Darwin, easily the most significant writer of the last century, remarks in his The Descent of Man, in a chapter in which he compares the mental powers of men and other animals: "...how little can the hard worked wife of an Australian savage, who uses very few abstract words, and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness, or reflect on the nature of her own existence." This is only one of a hundred passages of Darwin's which would have the Red Guards of Political Correctness shrieking for his blood.

In Russia, at the same time, Feodor Dostoievsky was condemning the avaricious nature and practices of the Jews, most notably in his Diary of a Writer [see "Dostoievsky on the Jews"]. Nicolai Gogol was writing much the same thing about Russia's Jews in fictional form, in his novel, Taras Bulba.

It is easy enough to hunt out explicitly heretical passages from the writings of virtually every contributor of note in the edifice of Western civilization, from the days of Homer to those of Thomas Stearns Eliot and William Butler Yeats, but it is not really necessary. When racism, sexism, and the other heresies are not explicit, they nearly always are implicit. One does not expect to find many commentaries on the shortcomings of the Negro by European writers when there were no Negroes in Europe, but European society was nonetheless "racist" in every fiber of its being. European men usually loved their women, who usually reciprocated, but their society was as "sexist" by today's Politically Correct feminist standards as it was racist.

A generation ago it was enough to attempt to shield students from the more explicit reminders of these facts: to explain away Luther's and Dostoievsky's denunciations of the Jews as aberrations, to make a few excuses of Poe's depictions of Blacks, to skirt around Kipling's more forceful calls for White pride. Anthologies compiled for classroom use carefully omitted the writings which were too hard to explain away.

This bowdlerizing of European civilization in an attempt to make it palatable to a diverse horde of students and teachers without European roots, as well as to growing numbers of disturbed White men and women whose inability to come to grips with their genders make the traditional "sexism" and "homophobia" of our civilization hateful, was utterly dishonest, and it was bound to fail.

The first postwar generation of White professors and university administrators (i.e., those who began retiring in the 1970s) -- the authors of the policy of bowdlerization -- was characterized by timidity and hypocrisy. Many of them were not happy with the moral compromises they were making, but what were they to do? Some simply didn't have the courage to come right out and say that the bearers of Western civilization had committed a collective act of suicide by engaging in the Second World War: that America and Britain, in particular, had been tricked into fighting against everything on which the cultural ascendency of the West is based, and that now they must either repudiate their role in the war or look forward to the eventual abandonment of their heritage altogether. Had the war not been fought in the name of equality and democracy, and is that not what Political Correctness is all about?

Others had already developed the habit of moral ambiguity, and it was easier to compromise even further than to draw a line and take a stand.

The second postwar generation (i.e, those entering their professions during the quarter-century since about 1965) grew up in the television age and went through puberty under the influence of the Beatles, the Students for a Democratic Society, the Yippies, and the media deification of Martin Luther King; with cities being set to the torch by Black rioters and looters, while the media and the politicians blamed "White racism" for the turmoil; with permissiveness, the denial of individual accountability, the belief that all points of view are equally valid, and protests against every form of authority. The youngest members of this generation were weaned on Sesame Street and sent to racially integrated schools.

They grew up, in other words, in a time of cultural, moral, and racial chaos, and they reached maturity with no clear sense of identity, no firm cultural roots, and no moral bedrock as a basis for their values. They were ready to go with the flow, wherever it might lead: to take their direction from anyone with a loud enough voice.

This moral vacuum provided the perfect opportunity for any interest group which could organize itself on a large enough scale for its voice to be heard. Many groups organized, and the media perversely provided the loudest megaphones for precisely those with the most destructive aims. The feminists, the homosexuals, and the racial minority activists, who in healthier times would be sent scurrying back to their holes, were first tolerated on the campuses and later welcomed with open arms. There they have formed an interest bloc strong enough to swing an increasing amount of weight in setting policy. Despite their diversity they have a common hatred which unites them: a raging, burning hatred for the White, heterosexual, patriarchal society which abhorred and rejected them.

Anyone who thinks that the preceding sentence is an exaggeration has not paid attention to what the PC cadres are saying.

When Black professor Jane Jordan was criticized for teaching her English class at the Stony Brook campus of the State University of New York in Black ghetto dialect instead of standard English, she defended herself thus: "Should we use the language of the killers -- standard English -- in order to make our ideas acceptable to those controlling the killers?"

The more radical feminist professors preach that the only ways in which women can gratify their sexual feelings and retain their self-respect are through lesbianism and masturbation. To yield to sexual attraction for a man is to betray their own gender and consort with "the enemy." Women who date are railed at as "prostitutes." Allison Jagger, a PC professor at the University of Cincinnati and chairperson of the American Philosophical Association's Committee on the Status of Women in Philosophy, teaches her students that the traditional family is a "cornerstone of women's oppression" and should be abolished.

The students and professors who attracted national attention during the last two years with their successful campaign to eliminate the "Eurocentric" character of the humanities curricula at Stanford University weren't merely trying to have a few changes made or a few minority-oriented courses added; their chant was, "Hey, hey, no, no, Western culture's got to go!"

The statements of Politically Correct academics are replete with references to the "oppression" and "exploitation" of women, racial minorities, and homosexuals by heterosexual White males, and the texts which have become required reading for all students at Politically Correct universities are brimming over with resentment at wrongs inflicted and with exhortations for revenge. One should not be surprised, of course, that minority activists long steeped in this literature of resentment should hate those they have been persuaded are their oppressors.

It goes beyond that, though -- as it reaches from the universities down into the high schools and elementary schools. A master plan for multicultural education put forward two years ago by New York State Education Commissioner Leonard Sobol is based on the thesis that "intellectual and educational oppression has characterized the culture and institutions of the European-American world for centuries." The remedy for this intolerable situation, according to Mr. Sobol and his colleagues, is to require that "all curricular materials be prepared on the basis of multicultural contributions" so that non-White children "will have higher self-esteem, while children from European cultures will have a less arrogant perspective."

We may be tempted to laugh when we hear one of Mr. Sobol's race complain about arrogance in others, but it is no laughing matter. The aim of the cadres of Political Correctness is not merely to make Blacks feel good about themselves by convincing them that their ancestors were founders of great civilizations and that the only reason for their own non-achievement is "oppression" by Whites. It is, more urgently, to squelch White racial consciousness and pride. It is to confuse heterosexual White males (and females), to keep them off balance, to make them feel apologetic, even guilty. It is to morally disarm "the killers," to emasculate them, to prepare them to accept annihilation quietly.

We may be tempted to laugh when we hear one of Mr. Sobol's race complain about arrogance in others, but it is no laughing matter. 

One may think this is too ambitious a program. Certainly, the radical feminists who would like to persuade all other women not to consort with "the enemy" have not made a very large dent in heterosexual activity on our campuses -- although they have sown all too many seeds of discord between men and women which surely will sprout later. And claims about the superiority of ancient Black cultures are generally ignored, even if few have the courage or honesty to refute them.

Furthermore, the cant and humbug of Political Correctness are largely confined to the humanities, the "soft" sciences, and the vast array of postwar "mickey mouse" and vocational curricula which have invaded the campuses. A student whose aim is to become a microbiologist, an electrical engineer, or a computer scientist will be too busy with facts to pay much attention to propaganda.

Nevertheless, the damage done has been enormous, and the threat of even greater damage is ominous. Whites have been confused. They have been put on the defensive. Some of the lies have stuck.

Consider, for example, the reactions of students, faculty members, and university administrators to a simple call for concern about the future for the White race. Members of the National Alliance, an organization whose principal activity is the publication of materials designed to raise White racial consciousness, have distributed on university campuses around the country a large number of stickers bearing the text: "Earth's most endangered species: the White race. Help preserve it." The only other thing on the three-inch by five-inch, fluorescent orange stickers is a request for interested persons to contact the National Alliance for further information, with a mailing address and a telephone number.

One might think that people seeing such a sticker would either be interested in its message, in which case they would note the address and write to the National Alliance, or they would be uninterested and simply ignore it. In fact, however, the stickers have caused a furor whenever they have appeared on a campus. Blacks, Jews, and members of other minority groups have reacted rationally, denouncing the National Alliance and the persons who posted the stickers. After all, the last thing they want is for White Americans to develop the same sort of racial consciousness which gives the minorities their own strength. As they have said many times in their calls for racial solidarity among their own people, "We've got Whitey on the run now; let's keep him running!"

It is the irrational fear of many Whites which provides the real evidence of the damage done by the program of thought control at our colleges and universities.

When stickers appeared on campus of Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales, a Roman Catholic school in Pennsylvania, last spring, the president of the college, Reverend Daniel Gambet, sent a letter to all students and faculty members warning them not to be influenced by what he described as "hate literature." He went on to say, "We believe it is important to publicly and unequivocally condemn this kind of material and the intolerant behavior which produces it."

When the National Alliance stickers were posted on the campus of Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, New York, last fall, faint hearts were set aflutter again, and a group of especially guilt-stricken Whites organized an "anti-racism" meeting on campus, while the administration announced that it had "contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the FBI will investigate the National Alliance."

The same stickers on the campus of William Paterson College in Wayne, New Jersey, provoked education professor Edward Bell to demand that the trustees of the college "do something" to protect Black students on the campus and resulted in breathless newspaper articles and urgent meetings of the college's "bias harassment panel."

When not only stickers but a proposal to form a campus group, a White Students' Union, to implement the message on the stickers appeared on the Minneapolis campus of the University of Minnesota last year, an uproar began that still has not died down. The organizers of campus Jewish groups, Black groups, Asian groups, feminist groups, and homosexual groups are accepted calmly by other students and by the faculty and administration, but the organizer of the White Student Union, mild-mannered, soft-spoken senior Tom David, is a constant center of controversy. His presence on the campus provokes hand-wringing editorials in the student newspaper about "bigotry," disgustingly wimpish letters to the editor by White males eager to confess the guilt of their kind, and rallies aimed at restoring the racial harmony on the campus David supposedly has upset.

In general, the reaction of many young White men and women to the National Alliance's stickers is similar to what one might have expected in 1892 if someone had distributed fliers on campuses promoting free love and illustrating the concept with a photograph of a nude, copulating couple. Sex was the taboo subject then, the subject that decent people didn't talk about and pretended that they didn't think about. Any mention of it released a rush of confused emotions: guilt, fear, embarrassment. Anyone so indiscreet as to challenge the taboo was denounced by many and hated by others. Rational debate was a rarity.

Sex was the taboo subject then, the subject that decent people didn't talk about and pretended that they didn't think about... Today the taboo subject is race.

Today the taboo subject is race: rather, any deviation from the Politically Correct position on race. Just as the parents, teachers, preachers of a century ago managed to persuade young people, at a subconscious level, that their natural sexual feelings were somehow unclean, perhaps even sinful, and therefore to be kept repressed, the increasing harangue about "White racism" and the supposed White male repression, exploitation, and general mistreatment of practically everyone else has had its effect. Even the suggestion that the White race ought to concern itself with its survival releases a flood of confused and disturbing feelings. No one can say quite why such a suggestion is "hate" or "bigotry," simply because, as was the case with sex a century ago, debate has been stifled and the persuasion has taken place largely at a subconscious level.

Which is not to say that some of the lies have not come to the surface; after White students have been put on the defensive subconsciously, they are inclined not to stick their necks out by debating the propositions that "diversity" is to be valued above homogeneity, that there are no significant racial differences in ability or character, and that men and women are essentially interchangeable units and should have the same roles in society.

This is grievous damage indeed. Those students also are damaged, however, who for whatever reason -- perhaps stronger character or less susceptibility to group pressure -- remain free of any feeling of guilt or of obligation to tolerate every minority impudence. They may still be able to learn their chemistry or their mathematics as well as ever, but to the extent that the insanity of multiculturalism has corrupted the teaching of history, of literature, of philosophy, of anthropology, and of other subjects they are robbed of their education and therefore of their culture, their civilization, and their identity. Universities cease to function in their natural role as formative institutions for the intellectual elite and become mere vocational training centers. And that was the way it was planned.

The reaction which has developed on our campuses to the crusade for Political Correctness is in some ways more dangerous than the sickness it purports to be attempting to cure. We can perceive the truth of this statement if we look closely at the position taken by the reaction -- and at the leading personalities in the reaction.

At Yale University, for example, the recognized leader of those holding the line against the zanier excesses of the Red Guards is the dean of the undergraduate arts and sciences students, Donald Kagan. He is widely hailed as a force for reason and moderation in Academia, because he has refused to be stampeded into going along with those who insist that homosexuals be elevated to a privileged status and Eurocentrism be replaced with Afrocentrism. He has even gone so far as to refuse to appoint a cadre of openly homosexual senior counselors for incoming freshmen, as Yale's organized perverts have demanded; and when Black students erected unsightly shanties on the campus as a protest against South African apartheid Kagan reminded them that the structures were in violation of university rules.

Kagan is a Jew. So is student Jonathan Adler, the editor of the Yale Free Press, generally considered a conservative and politically incorrect periodical. Dinesh D'Souza, the author of one of the most scholarly critiques of the excesses of Political Correctness, Illiberal Education, is an Indian. Not every publicist with a politically incorrect voice is non-White, but non-Whiteness helps. Most White, male academics who still retain their freedom of thought are afraid to exercise their freedom of speech, lest they be condemned as "racists," "anti-Semites," or what have you.

Among the PC cadres themselves Blacks are at least as noticeable as the Jews, but not as influential; the Black cadres, with their often ludicrous ideas about history and their bizarre attempts to assert an African identity, provide the comic relief and the muscle for the movement, while the Jews -- assisted, of course, by the feminists, sodomites, etc. -- provide the brains.

Political Correctness a Jewish phenomenon . . . in the same sense as Marxism is Jewish.

It is not just the disproportionate presence and influence of Jews which justify calling Political Correctness a Jewish phenomenon, however. It is Jewish in the same sense as Marxism is Jewish: that is, because the propaganda of human equality and of cosmopolitanism which validates it is Jewish in origin, because the principal off-campus support for the movement has come from the Jew-controlled entertainment and news media -- and because the foundations for it were laid in a horrendously cruel and bloody war fought to serve Jewish interests and advance Jewish sociopolitical theories.

The reaction studiously avoids mentioning any of this, of course, and it avoids attacking Political Correctness at its roots. In fact, it accepts the same axioms that its PC opponents do: namely, the axiom of equality and the axiom of cosmopolitanism. It believes in "diversity" and multi-culturalism -- in moderation, of course. In his 1991 address to Yale's freshmen Kagan gloated over the fact that the university, once virtually all White, had been transformed into a mirror of America's multiracial society. He said that Yale's new "diversity is a source of strength and it should be a source of pride as well." His restrained warnings not to scrap Western culture entirely just because it was built by dead, White, European males are usually accompanied by praise for the increasing attention being paid to Black studies and other PC areas of interest. He supports Yale's program of compulsory roommate assignments for freshmen, in which an effort is made to mix races as much as possible in the dormitories, and he says that he is happy that upperclassmen are not resegregating themselves to any large degree.

The same general pattern is to be found at most of America's universities. On one side are the nutcase weirdos, the hate-crazed dykes and fags, the dashiki-clad Blacks nursing their resentments, the Red Guardists raging incoherently at the White, male, heterosexual world; and on the other side are the cooler heads counseling a slower but surer strategy for destroying the White world. Most of the former are too silly to be taken seriously; the latter, however, by appearing to champion the cause of sanity and moderation manage to preempt most of the opposition to the lethal principles the former represent while embodying those same principles themselves.

It really is a tragedy. America once had some truly great universities. They not only turned out scholars; they also imbued those who passed through them with a certain sense of identity, with a feeling for the race's past and a sense of responsibility for its future. They helped with the business of sorting out values and fixing priorities.

[O]ne cannot put a sense of honor back into academics who compromised theirs away. And without honor one cannot expect truth to prevail.


Greatness cannot exist with egalitarianism, however. Most of America's universities are beyond redemption today. One can put down the loonies and chase the freaks and aliens off the campuses, but one cannot put a sense of honor back into academics who compromised theirs away. And without honor one cannot expect truth to prevail.

The universities will, however, be a battleground through the coming years, and the combatants will not be just the PC cadres and the reactionaries now pretending to hold them in check; there also will be those who understand the fundamentals and fight on that basis. Perhaps one day we all will be grateful to the minions of Political Correctness for having drawn for us in such bold and clear strokes the real meaning of egalitarianism and thereby give us the impetus to do what is necessary to deal with this disease of the soul.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Dostoievsky on the Jews

From National Vanguard Magazine Issue No. 72, 1979

Feodor Dostoievsky (1821–1881) was one of Russia’s greatest writers. The son of a physician of modest means, he had the opportunity for an education, and was trained as an engineer. He remained close to the common people of Russia, however, in the experiences of his life and in his writing.

Dostoievsky was a fervent patriot, but his association with a circle of radical writers led to his arrest at the age of 27. He was subsequently sentenced to death, reprieved at the last minute, and transported to Siberia, where he spent four years in a prison labor camp. This was followed by several years as a private in a Siberian unit in the Russian army.

After his return from Siberia, Dostoievsky wrote a number of novels, including Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1868), The Devils/The Possessed (1871), and The Brothers Karamazov (1880), all of which enjoyed immense popularity. It was his Diary of a Writer, however, published in a number of installments in the period 1873–1881 which most explicitly stated his feeling for his people and for Russia.
"In Dostoievsky’s time [in Russia] there
were some three million [Jews]"
Dostoievsky’s Diary dealt with a great many issues of burning interest to his fellow countrymen, showing clearly the insight and sensitivity which made him one of the most beloved of all the great writers Russia has produced. Boris Brasol, who translated Diary of a Writer into English, has described the reaction of the Russian people to Dostoievsky's death on February 9th, 1881:
"The news of Dostoievsky’s passing spread instantly, like an electric current, to the remotest parts of Russia, and a wave of mourning swept through the hearts of her saddened people...Enormous crowds attended his funeral: men and women from all walks of life — statesmen of high rank and downtrodden prostitutes; illiterate peasants and distinguished men of letters; army officers and learned scientists; credulous priests and incredulous students — they were all there.

"Whom did Russia bury with so great a reverence? Was it only one of her famous men of letters? Indeed not: in that coffin lay a noble and lofty man, a prudent teacher, an inspired prophet whose thoughts, like mountain peaks, were always pointed toward heaven, and who had measured the depths of man’s quivering heart with all its struggles, sins, and tempests; its riddles, pains, and sorrows; its unseen tears and burning passions..."
As much as his people loved him, Dostoievsky in turn loved them — and despised their enemies and exploiters. Foremost among the latter were the Jews of Russia. In Dostoievsky’s time there were some three million of them, some descended from the Khazars, an Asiatic tribe of southern Russia which had converted to Judaism a millennium earlier, and some who had flocked into Russia from the West during the Middle Ages, when they were forcibly expelled from every country in western and central Europe.

Scorning honest labor, the Jews had fastened themselves on the Russian peasants and craftsmen like an army of leeches. Money-lending, the liquor trade, and White slavery were their preferred means of support — and their means of destroying the Russian people.

So great was the Russians’ hate for their Jewish tormenters that the Russian rulers were obliged to institute special legislation, both protecting the Jews and limiting their depredations against the Russian people. Among the latter was a ban against Jewish settlement in central Russia; they were restricted to the regions of western and southwestern Russia (the “Pale of Settlement”) where they had been most heavily concentrated at the time Catherine the Great had proclaimed the ban, in the 18th century.

"[T]he Jews had fastened themselves
on the Russian peasants and craftsmen
like an army of leeches."
This, of course, was regarded by the Jews as “persecution,” and it was their incessant wailing about not being allowed to fasten themselves on the people of central Russia which first moved Dostoievsky to set his pen to paper on the Jewish question. In the section of his Diary published in March 1877, the writer remarked:
"...I know that in the whole world there is certainly no other people who would be complaining as much about their lot, incessantly, after each step and word of theirs — about their humiliation, their suffering, their martyrdom. One might think it is not they who are reigning in Europe, who are directing there at least the stock exchanges and, therefore, politics, domestic affairs, the morality of the states."
Dostoievsky, who had become all too familiar with Jews and their personal attitudes toward their Russian hosts, first as a boy on his parent’s small estate, where he observed the Jew’s dealings with the local peasants, and later in prison, where he noted the aloof behavior of the Jewish prisoners toward Russian prisoners, went on to speculate about what would happen to the Russians if the Jews ever got the whip-hand:
"...Now, how would it be if in Russia there were not three million Jews, but three million Russians, and there were eighty million Jews — well, into what would they convert the Russians and how would they treat them? Would they permit them to acquire equal rights? Would they permit them to worship freely in their midst? Wouldn’t they convert them into slaves? Worse than that: wouldn’t they skin them altogether? Wouldn’t they slaughter them to the last man, to the point of complete extermination, as they used to do with aliens in ancient times, during their ancient history?"
This speculation turned out to be grimly prophetic, for only a little more than four decades later bloodthirsty Jewish commissars, who made up the bulk of the Bolshevik leaders, were supervising the butchering of Russians by the millions.
"[B]loodthirsty Jewish commissars, who made up
the bulk of the Bolshevik leaders, were supervising
the butchering of Russians by the millions."
Dostoievsky correctly identified the secret of the Jews’ strength — indeed, of their very survival over a period of 40 centuries — as their exclusiveness, their deeply ingrained mental outlook upon the whole non-Jewish world as an alien, inferior, and hostile thing. This outlook led the Jews to always think of themselves as having a special situation or standing. Even when they were trying most ingratiatingly to convince the non-Jews that Jews were just like everyone else, they maintained the inner attitude of a people who constituted a special community within the larger, Gentile community. Dostoievsky pointed out:
"...It is possible to outline, at least, certain symptoms of that status in statu — be it only externally. These symptoms are: alienation and estrangement in the matter of religious dogma; the impossibility of fusion; belief that in the world there exists but one national entity, the Jew, while, even though other entities exist, nevertheless, it should be presumed that they are, as it were, nonexistent. ‘Step out of the family of nations and form your own entity, and thou shalt know that henceforth thou art the only one before God; exterminate the rest, or make slaves of them. Have faith in the conquest of the whole world; adhere to the belief that everything will submit to thee. Loathe strictly everything, and do not have intercourse with anyone in thy mode of living. And even when thou shalt lose the land, thy political individuality, even when thou shalt be dispersed all over the face of the earth, amidst all nations — never mind, have faith in everything that has been promised thee, once and forever; believe that all this will come to pass, and meanwhile live, loathe, unite, and exploit — and wait, wait..."
Is it any wonder that, although virtually every American with a high school education has either read Dostoievsky’s Crime and Punishment or his The Brothers Karamazov (or both), his Diary of a Writer has been quietly consigned to oblivion by the controlled educational and publishing establishments in this country? The only printing of Diary of a Writer currently listed in Books in Print is one issued by a small, specialty publisher (Octagon Books) for sale to libraries and priced at a prohibitive $47.50. That price tag ought to keep it safely out of the hands of curious American readers! [Note: available at Amazon presently (11/28/11), under $30]

Those fortunate enough to be able to borrow a copy of the book can read a great many more of Dostoievsky’s penetrating comments on the behavior of and attitude of the Jews in Russia toward the Russian people during the 19th century. Dostoievsky especially condemned the exploitation of the poor, ignorant, and helpless Russian peasants by the voraciously greedy and utterly heartless Jews. For example:
"Thus, Jewry is thriving precisely there where the people are still ignorant, or not free, or economically backward. It is there that Jewry has a champ libre. And instead of raising, by its influence, the level of education, instead of increasing knowledge, generating economic fitness in the native population — instead of this the Jew, wherever he has settled, has still more humiliated and debauched the people; there humaneness was still more debased and the educational level fell still lower; there inescapable, inhuman misery, and with it despair, spread still more disgustingly. Ask the native population in our border regions: What is propelling the Jew — and has been propelling him for centuries? You will receive a unanimous answer: mercilessness. ‘He has been prompted so many centuries only by pitilessness to us, only by the thirst for our sweat and blood.’

"And, in truth, the whole activity of the Jews in these border regions of ours consisted of rendering the native population as much as possible inescapably dependent on them, taking advantage of the local laws. They have always managed to be on friendly terms with those upon whom the people were dependent...Point to any other tribe from among Russian aliens which could rival the Jew by his dreadful influence in this connection! You will find no such tribe. In this respect the Jew preserves all his originality as compared with other Russian aliens, and of course, the reason therefore is that
status of statu of his, that spirit of which specifically breathes pitilessness for everything that is not Jew, with disrespect for any people and tribe, for every human creature who is not a Jew..."

"Now, what if somehow, for some reason, our rural commune
[i.e., the institutionalized system of Russian peasant society] should disintegrate, that commune which is protecting our poor native peasant against so many ills; what if, straightaway, the Jew and his whole kehillah [i.e., organized Jewry] should fall upon that liberated peasant — so inexperienced, so incapable of resisting temptation, and who up to this time has been guarded precisely by the commune? Why, of course, instantly this would be his end; his entire property, his whole strength, the very next day would come under the power of the Jew, and there would ensue such an era as can be compared not only with the era of serfdom but even with that of the Tartar yoke."
Again, how tragically prophetic!

Thursday, November 24, 2011

National Alliance Statement of Belief

(This statement filled the back cover of numerous issues of National Vanguard magazine:)
What We Believe
The men and women of the National Alliance believe that the future is what we make it. We believe that we, as free and conscious agents, have an absolute responsibility for all those elements of the world around us over which we are capable of exercising control: for the structure of our society and its institutions; for the beauty and cleanliness of both our natural and man-made environments; for the cultural and moral climate in which we live and work; for the military and geo-political status of our nation relative to the other nations of the earth; and, most of all, for the racial quality of the coming generations of our people.

We believe that no multi-racial society can be a truly healthy society, and no government which is not wholly responsible to a single racial entity can be a good government. America's present deterioration stems from her loss of racial homogeneity and racial consciousness, and from the consequent alienation of most of our fellow citizens.

We believe that a good government is a government firmly based on fundamental principles, the first of which must be that the long-range welfare, security, and racial quality of our people is the ultimate good. A good government is a government which implements continuing, farsighted programs consistent with this principle; it is not a government like the one we have now, which embodies no coherent national purpose, which is swayed by every minority pressure group, and which bases its policies on shortsighted, partisan considerations, drifting from one crisis to another and seldom planning beyond the next election.

We believe that, in addition to a principled, responsible government, we must have a society which facilitates progress in all realms of life: that is, a society whose institutions and values are conductive to advancement not only in material efficiency, but also in artistic achievement, in moral and physical health, and in racial quality. And we believe that all of these things are closely bound together. We can have a healthy, vital artistic life once again only when we reject the false notion of artistic universalism and encourage our young artists and musicians to express the inherent values and feelings of our own people in their creative work. Likewise, our educational system should concern itself not only with training our young people in the basic skills of civilized life and giving them pride in their racial, cultural, and national heritage, but also with building character in them. Self-reliance, moral toughness, a sense of personal honor, and physical fitness are qualities at least as important in our citizens as a knowledge of facts and techniques. All young people of our race must have instilled in them a sense of quality instead of equality; they must be taught to embrace discipline and order instead of being encouraged to succumb to permissiveness and chaos.

We believe that our people must be united by the common goal of building a better race. Today, without a common national-racial purpose, we are unable to focus our energies and achieve the great things which otherwise would be within our grasp. But once we are united on the basis of common blood, organized and disciplined within a progressive social order, and inspired by a common set of ideals, there will be no problem which we cannot overcome, no enemy whom we cannot vanquish, and no goal which we cannot attain.

We believe that the first step toward this goal must be the gathering together of all those men and women of our race who share our beliefs and who are willing to participate in our effort to raise the consciousness of others.

Monday, November 21, 2011

What would the Jew do without his Holocaust®?

From Brief Commentary, National Vanguard Magazine Issue No. 88, July 1982:

Menachem [Begin] is in the fourth day of his newest invasion of Lebanon as this issue goes to press. Those troublesome Palestinians, who just will not let his fellow Israelis enjoy their stolen country in peace, must be taught a lesson. So his brave, Jewish stormtroopers are giving the Palestinian women and children in the Lebanese refugee camps another good taste of napalm and shrapnel.

Poor Ronnie [Reagan], who gave Menacham the napalm and the fragmentation bombs and told him for the fourteenth time that he was not to use them for aggressive purposes, like he has used all the weapons given to him earlier, is embarrassed by Menachem's latest display of contempt for his American benefactors but dares not say anything.

Never fear: the controlled media are covering for him. Interspersed with maudlin reviews of the latest "Holocaust" epic from Hollywood are headlines about how the U.S. government brought 300 Russian "Nazis" to this country after the Second World War and helped them escape their just desserts at the hands of our gallant Soviet allies for mistreating Soviet Jews. The very least the U.S. government can do to make up for that is help the Jews kill a few more Palestinians.

What would Menachem and his tribe do without the Holocaust? Why, they might be held accountable for their actions, just like ordinary people! No wonder they fly into such a rage whenever anyone questions their famous "six million" figure!
"[T]hey regard each one of those 'six million' as money in the bank."
For the sake of comparison, consider the case of the Mennonites, an unworldly, pacifist Christian sect, named after their 16th-century founder. Sixty years ago nearly half of the Mennonites in the world lived in Russia, and nearly all of these were systematically murdered by the Communists.

No one disputes the fact that the massacre occurred, and yet the Mennonites living today in Canada and the United States never belabor it. They are deeply concerned about starvation in Africa, and they draw back at the very thought of anti-Semitism, but they seem to feel that their own coreligionists' sufferings are but a small part of the human tragedy.

Imagine an American approaching one of these pious, humble people and saying something like, "I don't believe the Communists really killed 100,000 of your people. I think the actual number was closer to 10,000, and many of those were not actually murdered, but succumbed to starvation and typhus under Communist rule."

He would probably scratch his chin, look the American in the eye, and calmly reply: "Why, that's an interesting thought. You got anything I can read on the subject?"

One can dispute with any number of nationalities who have suffered persecution in the past, until one is blue in the face, without provoking that special wrath unleashed by the Jews on anyone who questions the highly suspect details of their own claim to martyrdom. The reason is that they regard each one of those "six million" as money in the bank.

What Mad Bomber Menachem and many of his tribe do not seem to realize, however, is that, regardless of how many of them suffered during the Second World War, their "six million" bank account is long overdrawn.

CANADA also has its cross to bear. May 14 of this year [1982] was the 34th anniversary of the Jews' 1948 announcement that they were taking Palestine away from the Palestinians and renaming it Israel. The Jews of Sarnia, a town of 54,000 in southwestern Ontario, asked the mayor to fly the Israeli flag in front of city hall for the day. The mayor, Marceil Saddy, who is Lebanese by birth, refused.

The Jews then demanded a special session of the City Council, at which they screamed "pig," "bigot," "racist," and "idiot" at Saddy. It took the other council members about 30 seconds to overrule Saddy, run down the Canadian flag, and run up the Israeli flag in its place.

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Speech in Parma, Ohio, 5 April 1998

The topic is the range of people that the National Alliance should be trying to reach and influence, if not actually recruit into the organization, and how it might be possible to reach them. In the course of this discourse Dr. Pierce articulates his rationale for buying Resistance Records.

Tom Metzger was also present and spoke for a few minutes after Dr. Pierce.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Can a Universalist Middle-Eastern Creed Save the White Race?

Selected 'Brief Commentary' from National Vanguard magazine Issue #87, June 1982

researchers have put 14 years of painstaking effort into a valuable new reference work, World Christian Encyclopedia, which has just been published by Oxford University Press. It is crammed with up-to-date data of all sorts of the world's religious groups, and some of the demographic data tell an especially interesting story about the future of Christianity.

It is becoming more a Black man's religion -- and less a White man's -- with each passing day. Every day 7,600 Whites cease to be practicing Christians, according to World Christian Encyclopedia, while Christianity gains 16,000 Black Africans (4,000 per day through conversion and 12,000 through births).
"[Christianity] is becoming more a Black man's religion."
In 1900 two-thirds of the world's Christians lived in Europe (including Russia). Last year the balance tipped, with non-White Christians becoming the majority. By the year 2000 three-fifths of the world's Christians will live in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Another interesting datum is the result of a careful counting of Jews in the United States. World Christian Encyclopedia says there are 7.1 million of them, which is about a million more than than the Jewish organizations which keep track of such things will admit to. Perhaps there are more "survivors" than anyone had dreamed.


SOUTH AFRICA'S Prime Minister Pieter W. Botha, who has been softening up his country for a sellout ever since he took office, announced his plan earlier this year for sharing power with non-Whites. Said Botha: "We are not taking a highway to complete intetegration [but are seeking] the decent, Christian course of action in granting the Coloreds the right of self-determination..."
"[L]eaders of the Dutch Reformed Church branded apartheid 'heresy'."
South Africa's church leaders now seem to be in full agreement with Botha with that. While in the past only the liberal denominations -- Roman Catholic, Anglican and others associated with the English minority -- were advocates of Black power, since the beginning of this year the ultra-conservative Dutch Reformed Church of the Afrikaner majority also has called for power sharing and racial mixing. During a January church conference held in Pretoria, leaders of the Dutch Reformed Church branded apartheid "heresy."