Sunday, June 28, 2015

Media Myths

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THE SUBJECT I've discussed most often is the dominant Jewish influence in the mass media of news and entertainment. I've spoken most often about this because it is the most important problem with which we must deal. It's also a subject on which I receive a lot of flak. One of the most common forms of flak is the objection that it doesn't matter. Sure, the Jews control the media, but it doesn't make any difference, critics tell me. They're just good businessmen, and they know how to run the media profitably. That's why they've gained control, and it's no worse than it would be if a bunch of Irishmen or Mormons were in their place.

I think that many of the people who tell me this don't actually believe it themselves. They just want to be Politically Correct, and it's Politically Correct to absolve the Jews of blame for anything. Even many of the people who are distressed about what Jewish media control is doing to our society don't want to identify that control as Jewish. The Baptists, for example, who have launched a boycott of the Disney Corporation because of the raunchy movies its Miramax films division has been turning out, refuse to identify either Disney boss Michael Eisner or the Miramax bosses Bob and Harvey Weinstein as Jewish. The Baptist protest is against immorality in films, they insist, not against the Jewish control of the film industry.

That's a bit like saying you're against syphilis but you have nothing against spirochetes. And it's not really honest, this determination to be Politically Correct. Political Correctness is based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in the place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit Politically Incorrect truths, has very serious consequences for all of us. If we refuse to talk realistically about the Jewish control of the mass media, we may as well give up on trying to do anything about the negative effects this Jewish media control is having on our society.

Let me give you a specific example of refusal to face a Politically Incorrect truth. Steven Spielberg has a new film out, Saving Private Ryan, and it's been getting a lot of attention by the reviewers. They say that the film is good because it is so realistic, because it gives such an honest portrayal of the Second World War. And of course, the film does show the blood-and-guts aspect of the war a bit more starkly than other films have. But honest it is not. It propagates the same lies about the Second World War that every film -- and I mean every film -- made by the Jewish film industry in Hollywood for nearly 60 years has propagated. And the reviewers, regardless of what else they say about these films, all repeat these same basic lies.

These lies are that the Second World War was a "necessary" war -- that is, that there was no way we could have avoided it -- and that it was a "good" war -- that is, a morally justified war. We were forced to fight Germany in order to protect America. We could not have stayed out of the war or fought on the other side, because that would have been immoral. The other side was evil. We fought against evil. By destroying Germany and Hitler we saved the world, Hollywood tells us. We saved freedom. We saved the world from slavery and tyranny. Hitler was an evil man, the most evil man who has ever lived, and with his evil SS troops he intended to enslave the world and destroy everything beautiful and good. But we stopped him. We saved America. We saved the world.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

The Importance of Leadership

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

EVERY TIME I fly somewhere for a meeting or a speaking engagement, I have to spend an hour or two in airports. That's a very democratic experience. One really sees the dregs of humanity in airports these days. It used to be that what bothered me most was seeing young White women with mongrel offspring in tow. What irritates me at least as much these days is the sight of young White males trying to look and act like Blacks. In every airport one sees these sorry specimens wearing hip-hop garb: backward baseball caps, baggy shorts or trousers, and clueless expressions on their faces. More and more one sees these slack-jawed cretins with their hair done in cornrows and pieces of metal through their lips or cheeks or nostrils.

I mentioned in a recent broadcast that I saw young Whites like this shuffling along the sidewalks of Philadelphia during one of my rare visits to that urban pesthole last month. The more White males I see garbed and groomed like Blacks, the less surprised I am to see White females leading by the hand the disgusting proof that they have been dabbling in bestiality. It's obvious that this sort of degeneracy is rapidly becoming much more widespread. When I did an interview with Rolling Stone magazine nearly two years ago, they sent along a German photographer who had his blond hair done in dreadlocks. I don't know why I should expect more of Germans than that. After all, they have had 57 years -- two generations -- of Judaeo-American forced education in democracy now. Turn on any TV receiver in Germany, and you will see much of the same poisonous, race-destroying filth from Hollywood that you see here. Young Germans watch Sumner Redstone's MTV just about as much as young Americans do. And in Germany as in America: monkey see, monkey do.

Last year the first-place photojournalism award for the best photograph by a newspaper photographer went to Mike Urban of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, for a photograph he took during the Mardi Gras riot there. I talked about that riot on this program last year. Gangs of Blacks ran through the mostly White crowd of Mardi Gras revelers, snatching purses, punching White women in the face, throwing them to the ground, and kicking them senseless, while Seattle's cops stood on the sidelines and refused to interfere, lest they be accused of "racial profiling." One young White man who tried to help a young White woman who had been knocked down and was being kicked by Blacks, was smashed in the head by a Black wielding a bottle and was killed. I repeatedly watched the newsreel footage of the riot, and it clearly was a Black-on-White riot.

But not entirely. There were some Whites among the rioters: "wiggers" I call them. That means "White niggers." They're the ones with the backward baseball caps. Mike Urban's prize-winning photograph, which the Seattle Post-Intelligencer did not have the courage to publish, is of a young White woman in the crowd who has been stripped naked by a gang of men and is being pawed and sexually abused by some of them while others constrain her. Most of the 20 or so men holding the naked girl down and pawing her are non-Whites: mestizos or Blacks. But in the photograph one can see clearly three or four White males -- wiggers -- grinning as they help the Blacks hold the struggling girl: a shocking and sickening portrait of the reality of multiculturalism.

What should be done with wiggers? In my view they are a thousand times worse than Blacks, and when the time of cleansing for America comes, they certainly will be dealt with first.

Monday, June 22, 2015

Aesop's Fables

by Dr. William L. Pierce

LAST WEEK I gave an interview to a news reporter from a television station in Charlotte, North Carolina. That's station WSOC, channel nine, Michael Eisner's ABC affiliate in Charlotte. The reporter and his cameraman drove up to my broadcast studio in West Virginia. My organization, the National Alliance, has been doing some recruiting in Charlotte, and someone had given a copy of one of our recruiting leaflets to the reporter at a Charlotte gun show. The reporter apparently had checked with his superiors at his television station and been told that the National Alliance is a "hate group," so he had come up to check us out and interview me.

The reporter was an enthusiastic young man of apparently normal intelligence, although clearly a bit trendy, as virtually all media people are. While we were talking off-camera, he told me that he is a recent graduate of Auburn University in Alabama. During the interview we toured our book department, where we stock the books sold by the National Alliance. He noted that we advertise many children's books, and he asked me why.

I told him that decent children's books are becoming increasingly difficult for parents to find in bookstores or libraries, because the multiculturalists have had a devastating effect on the publishing of children's books, insisting that every illustration in children's literature show a racially mixed group, that homosexuals be portrayed positively, that little girls be shown doing typically "boy" things and vice versa. In fact, I said, there has been a real effort afoot to keep traditional children's books away from children. The multiculturalists don't want White children to learn about their own history and traditions. They don't want White children to learn the values and attitudes that are inherent in the sorts of books that White children used to read in America before the Second World War. So the National Alliance searches for good children's books which the multiculturalists haven't gotten to yet and makes them available to parents who want their children to learn these traditional values.

Friday, June 19, 2015

Cowardice and Individualism

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

IN VARIOUS Free Speech articles I've spoken about our problems with Blacks, with Asian immigrants, with mestizos, and of course, with Jews -- especially about our problems with Jews, in deference to their demand always to be at the head of the line. Now, I'd like to talk about our problems with ourselves, with European-Americans: about what's wrong with White people.

Actually, this is such a huge subject that I can deal with only a tiny part of it. In the organization which I head, the National Alliance, I've been talking with members about two aspects of the White problem: White cowardice and White selfishness. Here are some of our thoughts.

If most White people weren't such terrible cowards, we wouldn't have problems with Blacks, mestizos, Jews, or anyone else today. We would have solved all of those problems long ago. There are plenty of people who agree with us about the type of society we want, the type of future we want for our people. There are many people who are disgusted with the rotten politicians and the rotten political system we have in Washington, people who are angry about what non-White minorities have done to our schools and our cities, people who are sick and tired of seeing television and the other mass media promote everything which is sick, perverse, and destructive. Many people don't feel guilty when the media tell them to feel guilty. There are plenty of people who want a clean, decent, White society for their children to grow up in. But these people are afraid to say or do anything. Many are terrified even to have other people know what they are thinking. Why is that? What are White people afraid of?

I understand the difference between prudence or reasonable caution on the one hand and cowardice or unreasoning fear on the other hand. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice is. Imagine, for example, that you work in an office under a Jewish supervisor. You are close to retirement, and you can't afford to lose your employment. Your Jewish boss is a big supporter of Clinton, affirmative action, "diversity," homosexuality, feminism, racial mixing, and every other thing which is bad for our people. And the boss always is pushing these things, is making favorable comments about these things, around you and your fellow employees. He's always saying that Bill Clinton is a wonderful man and that all of the people who are attacking him are just a bunch of bigots who hate him because he has been so good to Israel. Every time your Jewish boss says something like that you bite your tongue and keep your mouth shut, even though you want to tell him what you really think. You consider the consequences to yourself and to your family if you speak out, and you decide that it's not worth it. So you grit your teeth and remain silent. What does that make you? Well, certainly you are no hero, but under the circumstances I don't think it would be fair to call you a coward either. You are just a prudent person.

The times we are living in tend to make cowards of us all. We are pressed to make moral compromises every day, and it becomes a habit. Certainly, if a man today tried to act honorably in all things according to the standards for honorable behavior 100 years ago he would very likely find himself in prison in short order. For all practical purposes we are living like a conquered people under an enemy occupation government. We adjust our behavior in order to get by without a lot of trouble. We do not act heroically, because heroism is out of fashion. We try to do what is prudent rather than what is heroic.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

A White World

new_world_x

by Dr. William L. Pierce

IN these talks I have with you every week, I try to choose topics of current interest, topics that are in the news -- or that should be in the news -- because it's important for all of our listeners to understand that the things we talk about in these broadcasts are real and relevant, and they demand our attention now; they are things that listeners can check on for themselves if I tell them where to check. Even when I choose to talk more about ideas than about current news, I try to tie the ideas into events, either current or historical, in order to keep listeners aware that the ideas are relevant, that they have consequences in the real world.

I want everyone always to have in mind that the essence of these broadcasts is not entertainment, and it's not even education: it's survival. It's our whole future. It's the continuation of the process of life that began on this earth hundreds of millions of years ago and is now on the brink of disaster. The reason I make these broadcasts is to move people -- our people -- to accept responsibility for where the process is going, to help pull it back from the brink, to deal decisively with those people and policies which pushed it to the brink, and then to help guide it back onto an upward path again.

But sometimes listeners tell me, "Yes, that's important, but please tell us more about the direction in which we should guide things after we overcome the enemies of our people and repair the damage done by their policies. Show us the path ahead. Tell us a little about where we want to go after we are able to plan the type of world we want."

Well, I believe that's a reasonable request. I don't like to build castles in the air. I don't like to spend too much time planning things that we aren't yet able to implement. But I think it is reasonable to think sometimes about the future even beyond those things that we have the power to implement now. What sort of world do we want to strive for? Let's dream about that for just a few minutes today.

We cannot, of course, ever return to the past, but we can compare various periods in the past with each other and with the present in order to make decisions about institutions and lifestyles, decisions about social structures and fashions and types of behavior. Different people, of course, will judge the past differently, will make different decisions about which institutions and lifestyles in the past were desirable and which were not. For example, I have one occasional listener who thinks that it would be good to return to a time when his church ruled everything, and witches and heretics were burned at the stake by the thousands. And he thinks that I should be the first to be burned.

So the type of world we strive for depends upon our values, upon what we think is important. The person who believes literally in a Biblical picture of heaven and hell and whose primary motive is to avoid being cast into the fires of hell will want a different sort of world from the completely self-indulgent person whose ideal is to be able to amuse or entertain himself in any way he chooses, and neither of these people is likely to be attracted to a vision of a world that is best for our race. So before we begin describing our ideal world, let's be sure about what is really important to us. I can only tell you now what I believe is important, but I think that many listeners will agree with me and so will share my vision of the sort of world for which we should strive.

I am a very race-conscious person, a person who is very conscious of the profound spiritual and psychical differences between my race and other races, and the world I want is one that provides the maximum scope for the spirit of my people to soar, a world that matches their inner nature, a world in which they are at home and can roll up their sleeves and go to work as if they were remodeling their own castles, a world in which they can unleash the full power of their imagination and of their creative spirit, a world in which the Faustian spirit of my people can exult in its striving to find and conquer new worlds, to perform noble deeds, and, in the words of Tennyson's Ulysses, "to follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought."

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Right and Wrong: "Diversity" Destroys Morality

different_morality

by Dr. William L. Pierce

WHEN I was a little boy I was taught that it is bad to lie. I was taught that it is always better to tell the truth, even if that sometimes puts one at a disadvantage. For example, if my mother asked me, "Bill, did you eat all of the cookies in the cookie jar?" and I had done it, I knew that I was supposed to say, "Yes, mother, I did," even though it might mean a whipping for me. (ILLUSTRATION: Just as morality -- correct, group-survival-enhancing behavior -- is necessarily different for the wolf and the hyena, so also is it different for different races of men, exemplified here by the European and the Jew.)

I believe that I was taught this pretty well, because I always felt guilty, I felt very bad, when I lied to avoid some unpleasantness or to gain some advantage. Actually, I usually told the truth, and as I grew up I admired and respected people who had the courage to be truthful when it was disadvantageous to them.

But as I grew up I also learned that life is a complicated business, and that sometimes it isn't easy to decide what is right and what is wrong. For example, suppose one is in a war: is it right to lie to the enemy? In a war there will be situations in which the disadvantage in telling the truth is not just to oneself, but also to one's people. Should one put the obligation to tell the truth above the obligation to protect one's people?

I thought about that one for a while. I decided that while there may have been, in the past, wars between gentlemen, where being truthful even to the enemy was the right thing, being truthful to the sort of enemies one was likely to encounter today could not be justified.

That decision moved me onto the rather slippery terrain of situational ethics. After the Second World War a lot of people skated pretty far out onto the thin ice of that terrain: they decided that what is right and what is wrong has no absolute meaning at all, that it all depends upon the situation one finds oneself in at the moment. They went much further in that direction than I was willing to go. As a practical matter, they abandoned ethics altogether, although they probably wouldn't agree with that assessment. From my point of view, for right and wrong to have any meaning in the moral sense, they must have the same meaning at least most of the time. One might be justified in making occasional rare exceptions -- in time of war, for example -- but most of the time one must have ethical rules which don't change to suit the situation or the crowd one happens to be with at the moment. If one has one set of rules when one is with Christians, a different set when one is with Jews, a third set when one is in the company of homosexuals, different sets of rules for Democrats and Republicans, and so on -- then from my point of view one should be looked on as an unprincipled or unethical person.

Monday, June 8, 2015

Thoughts on Recruiting, Part Two

NALogo-3x

by Dr. William L. Pierce

WHAT TYPE OF person does the Alliance seek as a member?

It has been said often in these pages that there are many different types of persons in the Alliance, ranging in age from 18 to 93, in educational level from high school dropout to PhD, and in economic status from unemployed and destitute to quite wealthy. In view of this diversity it might seem that it would be difficult to define a "type" as the desirable membership prospect. Nevertheless, some things can be said on the subject to good effect. And they need to be said, because otherwise individual members will form their own ideas -- diverse ideas -- as to who should be in the Alliance and who should not, and as to the type of person to whom the Alliance should direct its appeal and the type of image the Alliance should project for that purpose.

It is natural for people to judge others by themselves and to seek others of their own kind. But this tendency limits the amount of diversity which can safely be tolerated in any organization. On the one hand, if diversity is too narrowly limited, then one may have an organization whose members feel a strong bond of comradeship, but whose numbers will always be too small for effectiveness; on the other hand, too much diversity -- an effort to bring too many different types of people together for the sake of large numbers -- may result in an organization without internal cohesion.

In the case of the Alliance, the argument has been made that a large degree of diversity can safely be tolerated, because cohesion is provided by the shared purpose of racial survival and racial progress. As long as each member keeps this purpose foremost in his mind and believes that other members are doing the same, then differences in attitudes on other matters, in lifestyles, and in socioeconomic status will not be important. That is the ideal; unfortunately, it does not always match reality.

In reality, the strains caused by different perceptions of what an Alliance member should be are continually manifesting themselves. A few examples will illustrate this problem.

Many -- perhaps most -- members are fervent admirers of Adolf Hitler and his movement in Germany during the 1920-1945 period, and their admiration carries over into a more general Germanophilia. A few members, however, do not share this admiration, and they believe that any public display of it (as in articles in National Vanguard dealing with the Second World War) is harmful to the Alliance's recruiting effort. This difference of opinion already has resulted in a heated debate among members of the Southeast Florida Unit.

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Thoughts on Recruiting, Part One

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THE WEST is being destroyed as much by sick, criminal, or irresponsible Whites who take their orders from Jews, attempt to curry the favor of Jews, or are under the influence of Jewish ideas as it is by the Jews themselves. Without the active collaboration of millions of White men and women, the Jews would be impotent. This self-evident fact raises several questions relating to recruiting for the Alliance — and, ultimately, to ethical behavior for members.

For example, how does one judge the fitness for membership of a former collaborator? What degree or type of collaboration puts a person forever beyond the pale? What mitigating circumstances should be taken into consideration?

Before answers to these specific questions are attempted, the scope of the problem should be set forth clearly. First, in a strict sense nearly every White person is a collaborator to some degree. There are very few people in the West who have put moral principles first in their lives and have refused absolutely every form of collaboration.

Nearly everyone is at least a passive collaborator — that is, he fails to take those actions which reasonably could be expected to thwart the Jews in one way or another: He fails to find out which merchants and other businessmen in his community are Jews, so that he can avoid buying their goods and services, thereby withholding money from the Jewish community which would increase its political strength; he fails to speak out forcefully against false teachings in the schools in his community, thus allowing the Jews to spread their poison unchallenged; in general, he fails to keep always in mind that a race war to the death is in progress, and that he is a soldier in that war.

Clearly, if every passive collaborator were judged unfit for Alliance membership, the pool of potential recruits would be extremely small. Yet, passive collaboration is not a minor sin. If all passive collaboration were halted, the West immediately would become an untenable theater of operations for the Jews, despite all the efforts of their active collaborators.

The problem of passive collaboration is a difficult one. It is not easy to avoid some types of collaborations when one lives in enemy-controlled territory. Paying taxes to the U.S. government certainly is a form of collaboration, for example, as is serving in the U.S. armed forces, even as a draftee. And, it should be noted, there may be circumstances which make some forms of passive collaboration justifiable. The National Office, for example, does not usually take into consideration whether or not a company from which it purchases office supplies or books is owned by a Jew. Is this justifiable collaboration? Would the same behavior be justifiable on the part of a White person not actively opposing the Jews? What’s the difference? The whole question of how one should behave in enemy-controlled territory is an interesting ethical problem, which should be explored at a latter opportunity.

Monday, June 1, 2015

Creating a New Society

Life-Purpose

by Dr. William L. Pierce

A WONDERFUL THING about the philosophy which governs our movement is that it is very simple -- it is completely summed up in our Affirmation -- and yet it is all-inclusive. It tells us everything we need to know. Everything is derived from it.

It tells, for example, what kind of society we want to build in place of the present one. That is, it gives us the basic principles which must govern the building of a new society. Since our principles are fundamentally different from those governing any society now on this earth, then our society will also be fundamentally different from those which exist today.

Today, societies are categorized in various ways. A common way is according to which members of the society have the power. Thus, we have monarchical society, ruled by a single person, who usually inherits his power. And we have plutocracy, or a society ruled by the wealthiest members. And we have technocracy, or a society ruled by the technicians who keep the wheels of industry and commerce going. And gerontocracy, a society ruled by its elders. And democracy -- or monocracy -- society ruled, supposedly, by everyone. And, finally, anarchical society, in which, supposedly, no one has power, no one rules.

Another common way of categorizing today’s societies is according to the type of economic system which prevails. Thus, we have communistic societies and capitalistic societies, as just two examples.

But note one thing about all these different types of society. None are defined with respect to any purpose. They are defined according to which members control them, defined according to the mechanics of their operation, but none have any purpose -- other than the common purpose of all societies, of course -- namely, the static, day-to-day purpose of providing a framework within which its members function, presumably with more efficiency and greater security than they could function without a society.

Of course, the societies with which we are familiar may set goals for themselves: building an irrigation project, for example, or conquering a neighbor, or eliminating smallpox, or increasing the average wage. But these goals do not determine, in any fundamental way, the structure of the society. They do not provide a purpose which determines the essential nature of the society. A monarchical society or a democratic society which sets out to build a system of dams and canals or to take some land away from the members of another society remains monarchical or democratic, as the case may be.