Saturday, June 30, 2012

An Act of Conscience

From National Vanguard magazine No. 104, March-April 1985

A member of the National Alliance who is a law student wrote the following report on a recent act of conscience he committed in Washington D.C. He will remain unnamed here, so that he can finish his law studies unmolested and then participate even more forcefully in the struggle for a racially progressive future.

Enough is enough, I told myself, as I read the announcement on my school's bulletin board: “Law Student Anti-Apartheid Demonstration at South African Embassy. Racism Must End. Point of contact: E. Cohen.” Anti-apartheid demonstrations had been occurring continuously at the South African embassy for nearly six months; it was now, it appeared, law students' turn to perform their duty.

These demonstrations had angered me from the beginning, but this particular one was more than I could stomach. The more I reflected on the large role played by the Jews – many of them staunch Zionists – in the demonstrations and on the total prostration, the total lack of racial pride, among my fellow White law students, the less I was able to ignore what was going to happen. I finally decided that I would attend the demonstration – to demonstrate against it.

I spent the day before the demonstration at my house preparing two placards. One of them read: “Stop the Anti-White Double Standard.” The other read: “Why No Protests Against Israel's Human Rights Violations?” I also went to the Library of Congress, where I prepared the text for a leaflet detailing human rights violations in Black African countries and in Israel. I did not presume I could reawaken any White racial pride in the benighted souls of the White demonstrators, but I thought I could at least point out the hypocrisy of their actions.

I showed up at the demonstration with my placards and my leaflets, expecting to see a dozen or so of the students from my law school. I was astonished to encounter a loud and swirling mass of some 200-300 demonstrators marching on both sides of Connecticut Avenue, carrying placards, and shouting slogans. The demonstration, it turned out, had been coordinated among all the law schools in the Washington area – there are six or seven – and among young working lawyers as well.

I surveyed the scene for a moment. I knew I would get lost in the crowd if I went too far into it. An idea occurred to me. The demonstrators on one side of the avenue were marching in a large, elongated circle, which extended out onto a nearby bridge. I took up a position on the bridge about 15 feet from the point where the circle broke to go back in the other direction. I held my placard about Israel in front of me. Every person in that circle was obliged to read it.

Somewhat surprisingly, there was very little reaction. Most of the protesters read my placard in silence. A couple of the Blacks raised their fists and said: “Right on, brother!” There were only two comments from the Whites/Jews that I heard. One said, “Who's paying you?” Another said, “The old divide-and-conquer technique, eh?” After a few minutes a fellow with black, curly hair, who was apparently an Arab, broke away from the circle and came over to me. He said, “Man, I don't think this is the right way to raise the people's consciousness.” We proceeded to argue about whether it was appropriate for me to do what I was doing where I was doing it.

At this point a Black woman with a megaphone decided to extend the marcher's circle further onto the bridge. This had nothing to with me, but it was clear that I was in the way. I decided to stay where I was. No problem: the circle just formed around me. I spent the next ten minutes or so holding my placard in the middle of the circle, as the demonstrators marched around me.

At length I decided, somewhat dejectedly, that I wasn't really accomplishing anything. I thought I would do better to show my placards to the cars passing on Connecticut Avenue, so I extricated myself from the circle and took up a position toward the far end of the bridge, facing the traffic. I held up my other placard, about the anti-White double standard. But this was an even more discouraging experience: in very few of the passing cars did I see a White face. Black, Brown, Oriental – are there no Whites left in Washington?

I decided to go home. As I began walking to my car, still carrying my placard, I saw a small Japanese car and four people, two men and two women, who appeared to be White, gathered around it. When I came closer I realized their car had a flat tire, which the younger man was changing. I saw them reading my placard. At last, I thought, I'm getting a message to some Whites. I smiled toward them as I walked by. But after I had passed them I heard the young man's voice: “I know where I can get you some free psychiatric help.”

I walked on for about ten feet, while what he had said sank in, I stopped. I turned around and walked back to their car, where I took up a position about six inches from the younger man. I looked into his pale blue eyes and chubby face: “What did you say?”

“I said you need psychiatric help.”

“Why did you say that?”

“Because I don't agree with you.”

“You must be infallible, then.”

“Leave me alone.”

I slugged him. He stepped back against the car, and the older man stepped between us. The younger man then took a further step backwards and cried out: “Leave me alone!”

I spat out my revulsion: “You're the sick one!” Then I walked away.

Back in my car I sat for a long while, thinking, wondering, doubting. Had I accomplished anything? In the distance I could hear the chants of the demonstrators: “Down with apartheid!”   

Friday, June 22, 2012

Nietzsche: Neither Amoral nor Immoral, says Dr. Pierce

Nietzsche: Neither Amoral nor Immoral
by Andrew Macdonald

From Instauration magazine, page 6, August 1991:

Regarding the article in the May issue by A.F. Svenson, “Ethics and White Liberation,” I agree wholeheartedly with Svenson's principal conclusion: namely, that we need a firm moral basis for our liberation struggle. I would like to point out, however, that one of his theses is faulty. Svenson asserts, in essence, that Nietzsche was amoral, that the philosopher of the Superman was nothing more than a survivalist and that he provided only a “cavalier treatment of moral values.” This leaves the reader with the impression that Nietzsche was nothing more than a watered-down Germanic copy of Ayn Rand.
Nietzsche's writings are voluminous, with commentaries on a large number of topics. As with the Bible, they may be selectively used by persons with preconceived notions to “prove” almost anything about the philosopher's views. What is unarguable is that Nietzsche was an iconoclast, with Christian icons being particular objects of wrath. Many traditionalists have never forgiven him for that.
It is also true that Nietzsche, who referred to himself as “the Immoralist,” wrote of the need to “overcome morality.” Many people, I am sure, have simply accepted that at face value and not understood that he preached against the established and conventional ideas of ethics in order to replace them with a new and higher conception of morality. All of his writing is moral in nature.

Christian Semitic in its origin and essence.
The Christian's morality is anchored in his desire
for eternal bliss and his fear of damnation.

In truth, Nietzsche demanded a more exacting morality-and a more unselfish one-than any other ethicist. Christian morality -- the morality against which Nietzsche most often preached -- is Semitic in its origin and essence. The Christian's morality is anchored in his desire for eternal bliss and his fear of damnation. The Christian does good works and abstains from sin in the hope of a very personal reward, even if he must pass into the next world to obtain it. Nietzsche, by way of contrast, imposed upon us the burden of preparing the way for the coming of the Superman, and promised us no personal reward for accepting our responsibility for this task. Or, to look at it another way, the virtue that Nietzsche preached is its own reward.
A very superficial reading of Nietzsche has left many with the impression that he preached hedonism and egoism. This is an utterly false impression. In truth, he preached a selfless love of what man can become and of what the world can become. He also preached an active love that requires self-mastery and truthfulness before it can be effective, a love which requires a casting off of superstition and a contempt for all folly and weakness and decadence.
This message, or parts of it, can be found in a thousand places in Nietzsche's writings, but perhaps nowhere more explicitly than in the prologue to Thus Spake Zarathustra:

What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal;
what is lovable in man is that he is an over-going and a down-going.
I love those that I know not how to live except as down-goers,
for they are the over-goers.
I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers
and arrows of longing for the other shore.
I love those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars
for going down and being sacrifices, but sacrifice themselves
to the earth that the earth of the Superman may hereafter arrive.
I love him who liveth in order to know, and seeketh to know
in order that the Superman may hereafter live. Thus seeketh he his own down-going.
I love him who laboreth and inventeth, that he may build the
house for the Superman, and prepare for him earth, animal, and plant,
for thus seeketh he his own down-going...
I love all who are heavy drops falling one by one out of the dark cloud
that lowereth over man; they herald the coming of the
lightning and succumb as heralds.
Lo, I am a herald of the lightning and a heavy drop out of the cloud;
the lightning, however, is the Superman.

Svenson might have hit closer to the truth if he had admitted that Nietzsche's morality is too exalted for the average man. He might have pointed out more forcefully the folly of climbing out of the pit of Christian superstition and Semitic morality, only to fall into the pit of egoism and hedonism. He is utterly right in cautioning us that if we throw morality overboard, we lose our greatest source of strength for the liberation struggle. But he is utterly wrong in rejecting -- or in failing to understand, or perhaps even to see-the morality of Nietzsche. It may be that Nietzsche's morality is beyond the grasp of the average man, and that none of us is advanced enough to live fully in accord with it. Nevertheless, it is the morality which can sustain our struggle to a victorious conclusion.

He also preached an active love that requires self-mastery and
truthfulness before it can be effective, a love which
requires a casting off of superstition and a
contempt for all folly and weakness and decadence.

Link to the May 1991 Instauration magazine; on pages 11 and 12 is the article written by A.F. Svenson:

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Dennis Nix Cartoons

From title page of The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard magazine

From title page of The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard magazine