Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Do right, and fear no one!

This piece was originally published in 1993 by Dr. Pierce to his Alliance members as chapter 7 in the National Alliance Membership Handbook: 

Moral Considerations

People join the National Alliance for various reasons, and people also have various reasons for not joining us.

Some people react to various irritants: they're angry at the government's insistence that homosexuals be tolerated, or they are alarmed by the growing flood of non-White immigrants swamping America. Others join because the Alliance is a symbol of normalcy, sanity and security in a world gone mad: they feel isolated and afraid as their old, familiar world crumbles under the impact of the New World Order, and they reach out to us as to a life preserver.

Some people avoid joining us because the odds for our success don't look good to them now: no point in ending up on the winning side's blacklist, they think. Others stay away because they have some quibble with our program or our ideology: they want us to promise that we'll never use violence, no matter what; or they aver that they agree with most of what we stand for, but we spoil everything by saying nice things about Adolf Hitler sometimes or by refusing to recognize that there are some "good" Blacks and some "decent" Jews.

We spend much time and energy talking about all of these things. We use the immigration problem and the government's favoritism toward homosexuals as arguments to persuade those with a reactionary streak to join us. We try to convince the calculating, I've-got-to-look-out-for-number-one types that the odds will change. We assure the quibblers that we are not as far beyond the pale of social acceptability as they fear: that we will only use violence when conditions compel us, and that we are fully aware of Hitler's lack of popularity among mainstream Americans. When we're faced with the problem of overcoming prospective members' prejudices and fears, when we're trying hard to get a reluctant radio station to carry American Dissident Voices, when we have to do business with fools or bigots to accomplish a necessary task, we must be practical. We must be reasonable. We must plan and act with care and skill. We often must tailor our message for particular audiences. Occasionally we find it prudent to pull our punches. We are, after all, working in the real world with real people and all their imperfections.
"[We]e are driven by a moral compulsion, by the deep-seated 
conviction that a man ought to do what he knows to be right, 
regardless of every other consideration." 
Sometimes, though, it's helpful to stand back a bit from the everyday work of infrastructure building and the problems of propaganda and recruiting, to put aside all our calculations and rationalizations, and to look at what we're doing from a higher observation point. It's important to remind ourselves that our most basic reason for being in the Alliance and doing the Alliance's work is that it's the right thing to do. Ultimately, it's not any ideological quibble that motivates us: we are driven by a moral compulsion, by the deep-seated conviction that a man ought to do what he knows to be right, regardless of every other considerationAnd we know, with every fiber of our being, that it is right to fight for the survival of our people and for a more progressive world in which ever greater beauty, knowledge, strength, wisdom, and order are the common goals of our race.

No man, of course, is strong enough or wise enough to do the right thing, to make the right choice, every single time the possibility arises, every day of his life. We all yield to the temptation occasionally to tell an unnecessary lie or to do something petty, cruel, inexcusably selfish, or dishonorable. Were it otherwise we would not be human. What's important for us imperfect men and women is to have the moral sense to know when we haven't done the right thing, the moral sense to urge us to do better the next time: more important, the moral sense to know that, even though we sometimes make mistakes in the day-to-day conduct of our lives, we must not make a mistake when faced with the really big, once-in-a-lifetime moral choices, the choices for which there is no next time.

The biggest of these choices is whether we will choose the path of righteousness as our path in life and tread it as best we can for as long as we live, or whether we will spend all our lives making excuses and waiting until a more opportune time to choose the right path, meanwhile continuing to tread in the mire of acceptability and conventionality. This is not the same choice as that between doing right and willfully abandoning ourselves to evil. We can see all around us people who have made the latter choice: the politicians, the priests and ministers, the ambitious lawyer-bureaucrats, the Gentile newspaper reporters and scriptwriters and television commentators, all posturing and prating and grinning up their sleeves. They are people who consciously and deliberately have chosen the path of treason, the path of collaboration with the enemies of our race, because collaboration seems to be prospering in this era. We often feel the special hatred which these people bear for us, a hatred made hotter because we are reminders to them of their own immorality.

And it is not a choice made -- or even faced -- by the great mass of people who lack a moral sense altogether, or in whom it is so weak that it is overridden almost completely by external forces. This is the herd, the mob, the democratic electorate, the eternal consumers of spectator sports, from the circuses of the ancient Caesars to the latest World Series or presidential election. They are the soulless ones, those who really believe that whatever is fashionable is right.
 "[W]e know, with every fiber of our being, that it is 
right to fight for the survival of our people..." 
When heretics were being burned four centuries ago, they were among the onlookers, munching snacks and cheering and sweating and happily jostling one another. When there were "freedom marches" [six] decades ago, they were there again, singing "We Shall Overcome" and looking virtuous for the cameras. When rock became fashionable they rocked, and when rap became fashionable they rapped, with never a thought for the meaning of what they were doing.

When they began seeing their favorite television-serial actors and actresses with Black paramours, the females among them jumped up from the couch and ran out to find a Black boyfriend, while the males among them convinced themselves that they approved.

When a war is smiled on by the faces on their television screens the soulless ones are bloodthirsty jingoists, and when a war is frowned on they are pacifists, and in neither case do they ask whether or not it serves a higher purpose. 

Capable of helping to build a great civilization when they have moral leadership, they tear it down with equal enthusiasm when their leaders are immoral. They themselves, however, are neither moral nor immoral and, therefore, are faced with no moral choices.

No, the distinction we make here is not between ourselves and the willfully evil few or the mindlessly fashionable many. It is between us and those who know the difference between right and wrong but who, nevertheless, procrastinate and quibble and avoid making a choice, whether from lack of courage, excess of caution, or some other reason.

There certainly are those who agree with us but aren't in the Alliance because they lack the courage of their convictions. And there are those whose convictions simply lack intensity: for them doing the right thing remains only a conviction and has not become a compulsion.

It is possible, of course, for people to be moral in more than one way. There are moral people who interpret the facts of the world differently than we do. Most of these people are operating on faulty information, however: a belief in the supernatural is their most common fault. 

The essence of the matter is this: no moral White man or woman who understands what is happening and has a firm grip on reality (that is, who is not anticipating divine intervention) can collaborate willingly in the ongoing destruction of our race and our civilization. And to participate is to collaborate. Any practicing physician, public school teacher, policeman, or merchant; any construction worker, truck driver, or office receptionist; any soldier, engineer, or commercial farmer -- in general, anyone who sells his skills or his labor or provides goods or services and thereby helps to keep the wheels of the present society turning, and who takes no compensatory action -- is collaborating in the destruction of his own people.
"A belief in the supernatural is [the] most common 
fault [of otherwise] moral people who interpret the 
facts of the world differently than we do."
What a terrible dilemma this is for everyone who understands it but is too timid or too indecisive to do anything about it! Some simply try to avoid thinking too much about their moral failure. Others wriggle and squirm and try in various ways to lessen their guilt: they talk against the race-destroying System they serve when no one is listening who might report their insubordination, or they fool themselves into believing that they are participating in the mainstream economy in such a way that it doesn't really amount to collaboration and might even be considered sabotage, or they endlessly embellish a fantasy-plan they have for doing something moral ''when the time becomes ripe."

How fortunate are we in the Alliance! We few, we happy few, almost alone among the tens of millions of our fellow White men and women, can morally justify our existence! We, almost alone among those with a moral sense, can go to bed at night with an easy conscience, because we know we are doing the right thing. Even if we participate in the mainstream economy by day, we are in fact, not in fantasy, turning that participation against the enemies of our people by using the resources or the situation it provides us to build the Alliance: we are recruiting from the people around us in the workplace and we are supporting the work of the National Office.

We understand, of course, that being right is not enough. Too often in our past evil has triumphed and trampled right underfoot, even as it does now. Eventually we must not only be right, but we must have the strongest battalions. Being right, however, does give us an enormous advantage in the work of building our battalions. Ultimately the moral strength of those battalions will be as important as their physical strength. And the knowledge, on the part of each member, that he is doing the right thing makes him a stronger member now. It gives him an edge over the opponent who is consciously wrong, just as it does over the opponent who has no morality.

For our morality to give us strength, however, we must be aware of it; we must understand that we are right and why we are right. We must burn a sense of rightness into our consciousness, so that we never forget it. Then we can truly have as our motto: Do right, and fear no one.

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Dr. Pierce: Our Alliance Must Have a Spiritual Basis

The following is a Cosmothest lecture that Dr. Pierce gave on March 27, 1977. It is reprinted from the National Alliance BULLETIN: 
A Program for a New America 
By Dr. William L. Pierce

The topic I announced for tonight is a little misleading. I said I intended to talk about “A Program for a New America,” but a more accurate title would be “Why We Haven’t Yet Announced a Program for a New America.” That is apparently a subject which is on the minds of a great many people. When I talk to a new person who has recently read an ATTACK!  for the first time, the questions he asks tend to be of the sort: “What do you plan to do with the Blacks?” or “How do you propose to solve the Jewish problem?” or “Do you intend to do away with the income tax?”

And many of our own people, who have been reading Alliance publications for quite a while, ask similar questions. MS asked me several questions of this sort a few days ago and TO was pressing me for a program statement on the Jewish problem about two weeks ago. The answer I gave both M and T was essentially this: We don’t have any plan for dealing with the Blacks We don’t have a proposed solution for the Jewish problem.

I have the feeling that neither of them was completely satisfied with this answer, and since the questions were important ones which are also in many other people’s minds, and since I have actually given quite a bit of thought to my apparently trivial answer, I think it may be worth while elaborating on it, so you can understand just why that is the only correct answer at this time.

If the National Alliance were a political party; if theCosmotheist Community were a political party: if I or M or T were running for a seat in the U.S. Senate -- then, of course, we would have to have a program, and we would be obliged to have specific answers to all sorts of questions, not only questions about how we propose to deal with the Blacks and the Jews and income taxes, but about many, many other things also: about wages and prices, about the armed forces, about public transportation, about pollution and energy and so on.

But neither the Alliance nor our Cosmotheist Community is a political party, and I am not and, so far as I know, neither M nor T is a candidate for the Senate, and so we are not anticipating being in a position next month or next year where we will have to introduce legislation or take other concrete actions relating to the Jewish problem or taxes or anything else. So we do not have to have a program, with specific proposals for dealing with these things.

On the other hand, we could have a program, even though we are not obliged to. Anyone can sit down and daydream about what he would do if he became king tomorrow And, in fact, that seems to be what most small radical groups, on both the left and the right, spend most of their time doing. And nothing sounds sillier that a blustering 15-point ultimatum from a 10-member group of leftist revolutionaries or an announcement by a right-wing “party” consisting of five members and a mimeograph machine that they intend to send the Blacks back to Africa or to do anything else, when they clearly have neither the power to carry out their program nor even the faintest prospect of attaining that power. All they do by announcing a program is accentuate their own impotence. One immediately recognizes them for what they are: children who lack the maturity for coming to grips with the real world and who choose instead to live in their own fantasy world.

Let me back up for a moment. Everyone daydreams occasionally. I can well imagine that thousands of spiritually healthy men in this country have occasionally caught themselves fantasizing, as I have, about being trapped in an elevator for an hour with Henry Kissinger as the only other passenger--and an ice-pick. But unless we actually intend to put ice-picks up our sleeves and go looking for Mr. Kissinger, right now, it is best to put such fantasies out of our minds and think instead about the things we actually do intend to do. Fantasizing is only bad when it begins to serve as substitute for real planning. And the announcement by a political group of detailed proposals for remaking the world is only bad when it serves as a substitute for actually tackling problems of a somewhat smaller magnitude -- a magnitude that the group is actually capable of handling or has reasonable prospects of soon being able to handle. There is a name for the habit of indulging oneself in make-believe as a substitute for the real thing, and we want no part of it.

Now, we are still a small group, we are not a political party, and there’s not much chance one of us could be elected to the White House or the Senate in the next few years. But we might win a seat on a local school board, if we put up some candidates. Suppose we did. What about announcing a program then?

Well, if we were serious about wanting to win a school-board election, instead of merely using the election campaign as a forum for attracting attention and expressing our views, we would have an important decision to make; to tell the truth or not to tell the truth. That is, we could, on the one hand, run on a platform consisting o promised to oppose forced school busing -- if that were a threat in a particular school district -- and to make the schools safe by instituting a policy of permanently expelling anyone caught shaking down another student for his lunch money or assaulting a teacher. We might even go so far as to promise to overhaul the school curricula, weeding out the phony-history courses dealing with the imaginary gassing of six million Jews and the equally imaginary Black-roots topics. Such a platform would invite the wrath of all the liberals and the minority elements in the district -- including, of course, the media. Nevertheless, there are still enough White people with good instincts left in the population so that such a platform might not frighten them too much. One might conceivably win with such a platform and might not frighten them too much. One might conceivably win with such a platform, although it is certain not likely, considering the hullabaloo the liberals and the Jews and the Blacks would raise at the very prospect of having such a “racist,” such a “bigot,” such an “anti-Semite” on the school board.

On the other had, one could tell the whole truth to the public -- one could have an election platform which let it all hang out, so to speak. One could explain that it is not busing which is wrong, nor hooliganism by animalistic Black students, but racial integration itself. One could explain that the problem with what the kids are being taught in school today is not that the textbooks contain a few lies about the last war and about the supposed great contributions of the Black man to Western civilization, but that the entire basis of our educational system is rotten, that the entire American educational philosophy is wrong. And one could give promises to work to remove all non-Whites for the local schools, if elected, and to purge every Jewish and other non-Western influence form faculties and curricula -- promises which, quite obviously, one could not effectively keep, because one would bring all the power of the Federal police state down on one’s head if one tried.

Needless to say, considering the brainwashed conditions of the American electorate, the chances of winning a school-board election with such a platform are quite a bit less than with the first platform. And that is true even though one might very will run into less opposition form the media and the liberal establishment with the second platform, because then one could be dismissed as such an extremist, such a nut, that there was no significant danger of one’s winning. One’s candidacy would just be one of those freaky things we have to tolerate in a democracy, like the candidate the Prohibition Party puts up for the Presidency every four years. He receives very few votes, even from the tee-totalers, because they see no point in wasting their votes on a man who would not be allowed to carry out his program, even if he won.

[Lying and compromising] are inherent, 
they are inescapable, in any democracy.
To recapitulate: The choice, if we put up a man or a woman for a school board seat, would be this: either to announce a program, a platform, full of compromises and evasions and half-truths -- even to lie outright about our intentions, if questioned too sharply by the press: or to tell the whole truth, and thereby turn the campaign into an exercise in futility.

Now, you might very well ask at this point, “So what’s the matter with lying and compromising, considering the absolute necessity of what we’re trying to do? After all, all’s fair in war. And besides, lying and compromising are obviously what it takes to win elections under the present System -- in fact, they are inherent, they are inescapable, in any democracy. The average person, the average voter, is never capable of dealing with the truth when it is unpleasant or calls for self-discipline.” That’s what you might say.

Well, the trouble with lying and compromising is that we would not survive such tactics, in my opinion. I do not believe that any radical group, any fundamentalist group, can survive its own lies, at this stage of development. It is simply incorrect to believe that one can adopt such tactics without paying a heavy price. That is because we depend almost completely now upon true believers for everything we are doing. We receive economic and moral support, of course, from a large number of people who agree, to a greater or lesser extent, with the ideas expressed in ATTACK!, but who do not really understand our basic motivation -- and probably never will. Their thoughts and attitudes are too strongly locked into conventional patterns. But the active core of our movement consists of people who not only understand but are totally committed to the basic spiritual values form which all the ideas in ATTACK! and everything we talk about in these meetings are derived. Those are the values which are given to us by our Truth, by our Affirmation, which we recite together at the beginning of this meeting.

For the great majority of the people who send us five dollars a year for an ATTACK! subscription, it may be sufficient that we are opposed to school busing and to the Jewish domination of the news and entertainment media. But for the people who give up their careers, who expose their families to hardships, who work long hours when others are relaxing, who, in fact, may be called to put their lives on the line for the sake of what we are doing, these superficial things are not sufficient. Their commitment is rooted in the fundamentals. And they are not willing to compromise those fundamentals.

As our community grows, we expect there to come a time when we are large enough that we can diversify our efforts by setting up subsidiary organizations or front organizations which will make whatever compromises are necessary to accomplish specific, limited, political tasks -- without our central community compromising the values on which it is founded.

But that time has not yet come, and every new step forward we take now requires the winning of new true believers to our cause, people who are attracted only by the beacon of eternal Truth and not merely by a desire to find quick and superficial solutions to a few acute social or economic or racial problems, They are not, in other words, the kind of people who are continually jumping on bandwagons and the off again -- Goldwater bandwagons, Wallace bandwagons, Reagan bandwagons -- but people who make a lifetime commitment to a single Purpose. Those are the people whose hearts and minds we must win now, and so we must not lie, and we must not compromise.

Now, up to this point, I’ve given you two reasons why we haven’t announced a specific, detailed program, or platform, for solving America’s current problems and building a new and better America. The first reason is simply that we don’t want to sound foolish by announcing a lot of plans that we have no apparent prospect for being able to carry out. The second reason is that we are unwilling to say things which we do not believe for the sake of a large public acceptance, because we need those men and women who are attracted by our pure and unadulterated Truth far more than we need a larger public acceptance.

Does that mean, then, that our program is limited to the broad and general goals described on page seven of each issue of ATTACK! and that we have no idea about specifics? In ATTACK! we say:
    Our members are working to build a revolutionary new order of things in American life--a new order based on natural laws.
    We want to develop in America a healthy cultural and racial approach to politics reflecting an understanding of authority, discipline, duty, and honor.
    We want to achieve an organic society which will not only protect and perpetuate the great, traditional values of Western civilization but will purify the Western world of the degeneracy of communism and liberalism.
    We want to secure for our people control over our own destiny by eliminating from the nerve centers of our society every anti-American and anti-Western influence.
    We want to safeguard our racial identity by putting an end to the present insanity of enforced racial integration, which is threatening all involved with social chaos, cultural dissolution, and racial death.
    We want to foster among our people, though the recapture of our information media and our educational system, a new spiritual outlook: the outlook of free men living and working in harmony with Nature.
    We want to make possible for our people a new way of live, a meaningful and satisfying way of life as opposed to the present rat race in which every man and every woman exists simply as an exploitable economic unit.
    We want our country, one day to have a sane policy toward the other nations of the world, in place of the self-destructive idiocy which presently passes for American foreign policy. We need a policy based on a recognition that our interests are bound up with those of the other peoples having our common racial-cultural heritage, whether in Canada, Europe, southern Africa, Australia, or elsewhere, and that other races must develop in accord with their own distinct racial-cultural imperatives -- without help or hindrance from us except where such development poses a distinct threat to our own security.
You see, that program gives no specifics. It says, for example, that we want an end to racial integration, but it doesn’t say how we are going to achieve that goal. It doesn’t say what we have in mind for the 30 to 40 million non-Whites in this country, especially if they decide they want to stay integrated. And it doesn’t say how we intend to recapture our information media and our educational system. It doesn’t answer many questions which naturally arise about our intentions. It only says, in very general terms, what we want, but it doesn’t say how or when, and it doesn’t give details. Does that mean that we don’t have a more complete program?

[W]e are unwilling to say things which we do not believe 
for the sake of a large public acceptance
Not exactly. We have thought about specifics, and we do have a number of ideas along particular lines relating to these general goals. But we haven’t published them--or a watered-down and compromised version of them -- and we don’t intend to, for the two reason already mentioned and also for an even more fundamental reason, which I’ll tell you about in a moment. But first let me get a few more preliminaries out of the way.

In the first place, the political, social, and racial goals I just read are not going to be achieved tomorrow -- or next year. Any really detailed plan of action requires a knowledge of the circumstances, of the conditions, which will exist when that plan is implemented. We known that our goals must be achieved, but we cannot say when, and we have no way of knowing under what conditions. I don’t think it is very profitable for us to speculate publicly about what conditions will be like in this country 10 or 20 or 30 years or more from now and then to announce detailed plans based on such speculations. In fact, all we can do, even in private, is tentatively explore various contingencies which might arise, try to estimate the various probabilities, and then think about what we should do now to be able to deal effectively with the broadest range of likely future developments.

In the second place, even if we knew the circumstances ahead and could make a detailed program now, it is not likely that it would be a program we could publish. I see a future for the American people -- for White people everywhere -- which is very, very grim. I see a general public which in the future will be even less disciplined, even more decadent and spiritually ill than now, and I see some extraordinarily painful measures being required to restore our people to moral and spiritual health.

I see a future which is red with blood because of the accumulated foolishness of decades, and I hardly think this grim picture is one which the public today wants to look at, nor do I think it will help our cause to try to force them to look at it or at a political program based on it. They would reject it. They do not have sufficient understanding. They do not have the spiritual basis required to understand and accept it.

And that brings us to the essence of the reason for not publishing, at this time, a political program more detailed than the general statement of goals which appears in ATTACK! Our Purpose, after all, is not to elect a conservative Congress or to repeal the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, so that we can return to “business as usual.” It is the Creator’s Purpose; it is to begin ascending once again the never-ending Path of Life which leads from man to superman and beyond, the Path which carries our race, and what it will become, through higher and higher levels of consciousness toward the total and perfect Self-realization of the Creator.

That is our Purpose, the Purpose for which our program must be designed. It is a program which can, therefore, be only partly political in the ordinary sense and is, in fact, more spiritual than political. And it is utterly wrong to believe that we can achieve our political goals, the political portion of our program, before we have implemented our spiritual program.

That is the fundamental mistake of virtually all the right-wing parties and groups today, whether they are running candidates for office or not. They seem to believe that they can radically transform the political, social, and racial scenes without a spiritual transformation, a spiritual reawakening, of our people first. It cannot be done.

We have, I am afraid, a natural tendency, a natural weakness, which leads us to this mistake. It is the tendency to place all or most of the blame for what ails us on others instead of on ourselves. It is very easy to blame the Blacks for the fact that our cities have become filthy, crime-infested jungles and our schools combat zones where very little is learned. And it is very easy to blame the Jews too, not only for allowing the Blacks to do what they do, but for the corruption of our economy and the undermining of our national defense.

But it is a fact that when this country was formed we had no Black problem and no Jewish problem. We ourselves, our own people, were in total and complete control of our destiny, and everything that has happened to us had happened, in a sense, with our own consent.

We certainly cannot say that what the Blacks have done to our cities and to our schools was done by sneaking up on us and pulling off some sort of coup. They have done it gradually, over a period of more that a hundred years, and we failed to stop it. We failed to act even before the Jews had captured our news and entertainment media and began injecting their spiritual poison into us. Just as with the Blacks, we had every opportunity to halt what the Jews were doing, but we did not.

And the reason we did not is essentially a spiritual reason. We allowed ourselves to fall prey to these alien influences because we did not have a spiritual basis for resisting them. We did not have the proper values, the proper priorities, the proper standards, the proper attitudes and goals; we did not have the proper understanding, the proper degree of consciousness of our identity and our mission. Our lives, individually and collectively, were not committed to the One True Purpose. And until we have cured that situation, until we have cured our own inner sickness, we cannot hope to deal successfully with our external enemies.

Now, this cure, this healing of ourselves, is much, more than a matter of education, much more than merely getting the facts to the public about race and about what the Jews are doing. It is primarily a matter of bringing about the inner reorientation that will give the public the desire and the will to act on those facts. This is something which I have talked about before -- it is largely the subject of our Introductory Meeting Tape -- and I will not repeat myself on that score tonight, except to recapitulate our reason for our program being of the nature that it is.

We allowed ourselves to fall prey to these alien influences because we did not have a spiritual basis for resisting them.
Other groups -- third parties and fourth parties and what have you -- will continue issuing political programs and running people for office. And that is fine. We certainly have no complaint about that. Such activity at least calls public attention to certain problems and serves an educational purpose, although a quite limited one.

But we are fundamentally different form these other groups, and we will remain different. We have stated some, though not all, of our general goals. But our program is not one of working directly through ordinary -- or extraordinary -- political processes to achieve these goals. We understand that they cannot be achieved by themselves, without first laying a proper spiritual basis for them. Therefore, our program is directed almost entirely toward the accomplishment of this spiritual prerequisite for our political goals. Our program is concerned now, and will be concerned for the foreseeable future, with awakening a consciousness of identity and mission in an elite minority of our people, a minority in whom the Divine Spark, the Universal Urge, the Creator’s immanent Self-consciousness, burns brighter than it does in the rest, and when welding this awakened elite into a growing community of blood and consciousness, a spiritual community primarily rather than a political one, a community imbued with an understanding of our Truth and unconditionally dedicated to our Purpose, which is the Creator’s Purpose.

When this community is strong enough so that it can begin realistically to contemplate the implementation of our political goals in the larger society -- that is, when we have crossed the second threshold of which I spoke to you some weeks ago -- then, and only then, will we formulate and announce a full and detailed political program.

And I might make one final observation. I said our spiritual program is a prerequisite for our political program, but it is not just a prerequisite, not merely a prerequisite. It stands on its own. In fact, if I had to say which program is of more fundamental importance, I would immediately say it is our spiritual program.

If, by some miracle, we could carry out our political program directly, without a general spiritual reorientation fist, I would have no faith in the results. They would not last. But as long as our community survives, as long as there are at least one man and one woman of our race left who are committed to our Truth and able to raise their children and pass that Truth on to them, then even if this country were obliterated utterly, even if Western civilization were obliterated utterly, I would still have confidence in the future and in the eventual implementation of a new version of our political program, no matter how long that might take.

Sunday, December 22, 2013

Role of the Church

Soweto Christian Gospel Choir performs in Chicago, Illinois

The times, they are a-changing, and Western man’s institutions are changing too. One of these institutions is organized Christianity: the Church. (“The Church” – with a capital “C” – hereinafter is used in a collective sense, encompassing all organizations which embody the established Christian sects, both Catholic and Protestant, except where the context indicates a specific denomination.)

The Church has endured as a Western institution for about a thousand years – even longer in some parts of the West – but it is now feeling the hurricanes of change and responding to them more strongly than many new institutions.

Spiritual Masochism

Some recent news items concerning the Church will serve as illustrations of the changes which are taking place or have taken place: “The Church’s chief source of income today is women’s vaginas,” the invited speaker explained to her audience at Notre Dame. The assembled Catholic students and faculty listened attentively as Women’s Libber Ti-Grace Atkinson carried her theme back to the time when Mary “was knocked up” and then went on to predict that Catholic women would put an end to this exploitation by destroying the Church, because “the motherfucker belongs to us.”

There was a minor stir inside the United Presbyterian Church (a very minor stir, involving only two congregations) when it was disclosed at the denomination’s 1971 general assembly that a $10,000 contribution from the church’s treasury had been made to aid the legal defense of Angela Davis. Church officials justified the grant as helping to assure a fair trial for the communist Negress, who was charged with complicity in the murder of a judge and three other persons in a shootout staged by Black militants at a Marin County, California, courthouse.

The First Presbyterian Church of Tacoma, Washington, and the First Presbyterian Church of Anchorage, Alaska, however, expressed displeasure and indicated that they preferred the money their members put in the plate each Sunday not end up in the Communist Party’s legal defense fund.

Not to be outdone by the Presbyterians, the Episcopal Church revealed early this year that a $10,000 contribution from its treasury had gone to the militant Indian group which recently sacked the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington. The contribution was authorized by Black militant Episcopalian Leon Modeste, $23,500-a-year head of the Episcopal Church’s “Minority Empowerment Office.”

Unitarians sought last year to quash a grand jury subpoena requiring the production of the bank records of the Unitarian-Universalist Association. The subpoena was issued because Beacon Press, the Unitarians’ publishing house, had published the top-secret “Pentagon papers” stolen by Daniel Ellsberg and his associates.

The same Beacon Press advertising leaflet which listed 4 volumes of Pentagon papers (hardback: $45; paperback: $20) also offered the following Unitarian books: Three Documents of the National Liberation Front (“Americans may now judge for themselves whether the NLF (Viet Cong) principles are consistent with equity and their own sense of justice…”); The Vanguard, by Ruth-Marion Baruch (“A photographic study of the Black Panthers – eloquently capturing their spirits as well as their faces, attitudes as well as activities, in a uniquely personal and intimate introduction to youth and revolution.”); The Right of Revolution, by Truman Nelson (“For those who cannot understand the Black militants’ willingness to burn political bridges,  a gifted writer places new revolutionaries within our oldest patriotic tradition.”); Marriage in Black and White, by Joseph R. Washington, Jr. (“…racial conflict cannot be eliminated until we are willing to confront prejudice on its most personal level-by acceptance of intermarriage.”); and An Essay on Liberation, by Herbert Marcuse, the communist-Jewish senior theoretician.

Beacon Press, as a church organization, is exempt from federal taxes and mails its flyers at the special postage rates allowed to non-profit organizations.

The Massachusetts Bible Society has praised the efforts of a couple of modern Bible scholars, Walter A. Wolfram and Ralph A. Fasold, in its newsletter. Wolfram and Fasold have nearly finished their translation of the Bible into “Black English.”

Here’s the way the Gospel according to St. John reads in their translation: “God really did love everybody in the world. In fact, he loved every last one of those dudes so much that he done give up the onliest Son he had. Any man that believe in Him, he gonna have a life that ain’t never gonna end. He ain’t never gonna die.”

No Escape from Liberalism

The instances of change cited above may seem atypically bizarre to some churchgoers who have thus far escaped the mainstream of change and still preserve a pre-World War II, Norman Rockwellian image of the Church. Even the smallest backwater congregations, if they are linked by denominational ties to a national organization, must inevitably fall under the influence of national trends, however.

The immediate effect of the liberalization of the Church has been a drastic decline in its influence. During the 1960’s overall church attendance in North America dropped by more than one-sixth.

Young People Abandon Church

More significantly, in the age bracket 21-29 years church attendance dropped by one-third in the 1960’s and is falling even more rapidly in the 1970’s. During the same decade Bible sales fell 30 per cent.
All Christian sects are now experiencing a critical shortage of clergymen. More priests and ministers return to secular life every year, and fewer young men enter the seminaries. This sharp decline in the number of clergymen can be seen, for example, in the almost complete substitution of laymen for priests on the faculties of most church-owned schools.

[T]he Church is not dying gracefully or with dignity

Adapting to a TV Life-style

The Church, in attempting to adapt to radical changes in its environment, has, like the dinosaur, failed. Unlike the dinosaur, however, the Church is not dying gracefully or with dignity. Its attempts to maintain its grip have led it to plumb the depths of degeneracy in a degenerate age.

Traditional services and ceremonies of beauty and solemnity have been corrupted by the introduction of elements of “mod” culture. More and more they are taking on the aspects of “happenings,” with rock combos replacing organists and choirs, beads and psychedelic lights taking the place of vestments and candles, “swinging” ditties and jive-dialect Bible translations edging out the old hymns and the King James version.

Social Gospel

Sermons have, in recent years, been giving fairly short shrift to spiritual matters and instead have tended to become social-action harangues. The pulpit has, to a very large extent, become a sounding board for neo-liberalism.

In the more avant-garde denominations, the prestige attached to a minister is determined not so much by his ability to interpret Holy Writ for his congregation as it is by the number of times he has been in jail for pouring blood on Selective Service records or supplying the teenagers in his flock with pot.

Religious Thirst Unquenched by Modern Church

And yet, becoming “mod” and “relevant” has not won for the Church the affection of the present generation; it has only lost the respect of a portion of the old generation. Pot and pacifism and “love” have served as poor substitutes for reverence and awe.

But the Church is not dead yet. Left to its own devices, it would probably linger in the West for another hundred years or more before becoming a negligible factor in the overall scheme of things.

The Church once stood as a bitter and determined opponent
of the communist movement. Today it has-at best- settled on
peaceful coexistence with this deadly enemy of mankind.

Dying but Still Dangerous

Though the Church has lost its former position of absolute moral authority, tradition still lends a not inconsiderable weight to its influence. Many Christians who are no longer fervent in their adherence to the Church’s doctrines-even those who no longer attend church services-still allow their opinions and attitudes to be governed to a greater or lesser extent by the Church.

Unfortunately, this influence is being sadly misused. The Church, in turning away from purely theological matters and concerning itself primarily with politics and social and racial policies instead, has-on virtually every major issue-taken a position diametrically opposed to Western interests.

The Church once stood as a bitter and determined opponent of the communist movement. Today is has-at best-settled on peaceful coexistence with this deadly enemy of mankind. At worst-and this is becoming more common every day-it has become an enthusiastic collaborator, not only with formally recognized Marxist groups, but with practically every ragtag band of sub-men big enough to organize a street demonstration in the United States or overthrow the ruling clique in banana republic.

Church Now Racially Destructive

Most serious of all is the Church’s racial attitude. It is not simply that “racism” has become the No. One Devil, the only unforgivable heresy, the ultimate sin in the eyes of the Church, but all the major sects, Catholic as well as Protestant, have perversely embraced a program calculated to physically destroy the racial basis of Western man’s existence.

This program has already advanced to the stage where a number of church organizations have issued statements supporting-even urging-miscegenation by Christians.

Crimes Against God and Nature

A report released a few months ago by the Presbyterian Church in the United States, a predominantly Southern denomination, said that Presbyterian officials “recognize with appreciation the contribution to better human relations in the world community that may come from Christian marriage across cultural, national, and racial lines.” Another section of the report encouraged church members who are considering adoption to give serious thought to adopting Negro or Oriental orphans instead of White infants.

And the Presbyterian Church in the United States is no worse than other major denominations in this regard. Everyone has heard the insidious spot advertisements sponsored by various denominational groups which are intended to instill feelings of racial guilt in White listeners while undermining racial pride and solidarity.

Backing Black Terror

On the international level we have the sorry spectacle of such ecumenical groups as the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches lobbying viciously to isolate and undermine the independent White governments of Rhodesia and the Republic of South Africa.

Last September the World Council of Churches allocated $200,000 to support Black terrorist “freedom fighters” in Africa. Much of that money has already been spent on weapons and has allowed a number of terrorist raids to be launched from Zambia against White settlers in Rhodesia this year.

Likewise, in Australia the government’s abandonment of its former “White Australia” immigration policy was due to much pressure from the powerful Australian Council of Churches as from Jewish and Marxist groups.

Tragic Betrayal

The present racial policies of the Church are tragic and ironic, for it was Western man-and Western man alone-who built the Church.

For several centuries the interests of the race and the interests of the Church were one. It was under the sign of the cross that the Teutonic Knights conquered and civilized the lands of eastern Europe, that the Crusaders extended the Western imperium into the Orient, that our European ancestors defended the West against invasions by Moors and Mongol hordes.

The Church was, for hundreds of years, the principal repository for Western science and learning, the most important stimulus for Western creative and artistic energies. All the great artists of the Middle Ages, all the architectural splendors of Gothic Europe, much of the sublime music ever created drew their inspiration from the Church.

Subversion by Aliens

But the times have changed. Those who most bitterly resent the changes which have taken place in the Church place the blame in several areas.

Some see the problem as a matter of infiltration and subversion of the Church by alien elements. This is, indeed, not a new problem. It played a major role in bringing on the Spanish Inquisition in the 15th century, after Jewish converts, or marranos, began infiltrating the Catholic Church.

The infiltration has certainly increased since the 15th century, and it has had profound effects. For one thing, there has been a radical revision of the Church’s attitude toward Jews.

Bulwark Against Culture Distortion

Until recent times the Church was a major bulwark against Jewish influences in the life of the West. If the natural instincts of the people failed to keep the Jews at a distance, the Church was prepared to do so on purely religious grounds.

Now every bit of Church doctrine and liturgy has been carefully scanned and, wherever necessary, “modernized” to bring it into line with the new Judeo-Christian way of looking at things. Even the beautiful and moving Passion Play at Oberammergau has recently been twisted into conformity with the new line by removing or recasting all those portions which portrayed Jews in a bad light.

Putting Jews on a Pedestal

Lutherans and Presbyterians have recently begun publishing new Sunday school materials which no longer place the blame for the Crucifixion on the Jews (“We are all responsible”) but instead describe them in the same terms the Jews use in referring to themselves: “a special people,” “God’s chosen people,” etc.

The current trend toward ecumenicism is also tending to stress a connection between Christianity and Judaism.

Decadence is Major Factor

Others see the problem as a simple matter of decadence rather than deliberate subversion. In their view the really significant symptom is not the Red rabble-rouser-the Father Groppi-in the pulpit; it is the sincere Methodist minister, anxious to keep up the attendance-and the collections-at his Sunday services, who lies awake at night thinking of new Madison Avenue gimmicks to make his service “relevant.”

Regardless of the extent to which it is deliberate or involuntary, the fact is that the Church is suffering from exactly the same disease which has infected all the other institutions of Western civilization: neo-liberalism.

Mulatto Catholics in Rio de Janeiro celebrate the rite of an 
African spirit cult on the beach. They are offering a sacrifice 
to Iemanja, a sea witch. The Roman Catholic Church 
increasingly tolerates irregularities of this sort as the non-White 
membership of the Church grows. In some parts of Latin 
America Christian doctrine is so strongly modified by local 
paganism as to be barely recognizable.

Mulatto Failure

The burning zeal, the intolerance of heresy, the unquestioning devotion to the Faith-all the things that once gave the Church its vitality-are gone. What is left is an empty, materialistic shell.

The fervent men who once devoted their lives to the service of God have been replaced by Ivy League organization men who are eager to please, adapt, conform. They have held moistened forefingers to the winds of change and have let themselves be persuaded that those winds are blowing toward a mulatto future. And they want to get there ahead of everyone else.

A More Fatal Ill

Many Christians nurse the hope that the Church’s faults can be cured by rooting out the subversives and reversing the neo-liberal policies. They see the Church as a fortress of goodness, sorely beset now by its enemies but worthy of being defended and set right again, for the ultimate good of our race. They fail to see a more fatal ill.

That ill lies in the changing racial complexion of Christendom. The fact is that Christendom always has been, in theory, a community of faith rather than of blood. Just as with all cultural phenomena, the Church reflects the racial characteristics of the human masses who give it life. When the Holy Roman Empire was the secular arm of Christendom, those masses were substantially Aryan. Today they are not.

Approximately half the Christians in the world today are non-White, and by the end of this millennium non-White Christians will outnumber White Christians by three to two, if the present shift of Christendom’s center of gravity to the south continues. Regardless of the reasons for this shift, it is real and has proceeded far beyond any possibility of recall.

[T]he Church can no longer be regarded as a Western 
institution, and those who serve it cannot also 
wholeheartedly serve our race.

Cast Corruption Aside

Thus, the Church can no longer be regarded as a Western institution, and those who serve it cannot also wholeheartedly serve our race.

This poses a choice for every man and every woman of the West: a choice which will be difficult for some and easy for others, but a choice must be made.

The strongest and the best will make the right choice, for they will understand that their inner faith is the essence and the Church superficiality. While the superficiality can be corrupted, the faith can nevertheless be kept pure.

They will cast aside the corrupt and cling to the pure, and in the trials which lie ahead it will stand them in good stead.

From Attack! tabloid No. 19, 1973