The Twin Errors of Liberalism and Egoism

by Dr. William L. Pierce

LAST MONTH we began looking at the question, "What is the purpose of man's existence?" We saw that there is, in the men and women of our race, an inborn, intuitive urge to order our lives in accord with some purpose beyond the satisfaction of our daily whims. This urge is stronger in some men than in others.

We also saw the importance which this urge, or its degree of fulfillment or non-fulfillment, has in determining the type of world in which we live. Human society tends to be orderly and truly progressive when men with a more highly developed sense of inner direction prevail, and society becomes chaotic, regressive, and decadent when men with a weaker sense of direction prevail, or when all tend to lose or ignore their inner directions.

But even in the best of times, when men with a strong sense of purpose have the upper hand, few -- if any -- have a true understanding of what that purpose should really be. They feel an inner direction, but they mistake where it is pointing. And so the great majority of even the best of men go in the wrong direction, following false purposes.

Men strive for the True Purpose, but their striving is in the form of an almost-blind groping for something seen only dimly and indistinctly, like a half-remembered dream. Their imperfect understanding leads them far more often into error than into truth.

The greatest cause of error -- the greatest hindrance to a proper response to our sense of inner direction -- has been a wrong outlook, a wrong general attitude toward life and the world, a wrong philosophical framework within which we interpret our inner promptings. Just as using a badly flawed lens to read a message distorts it and, more often than not, causes us to misread it, so forcing an interpretation of our sense of inner direction into the wrong philosophical framework distorts it and leads us into error.

Toward a Healthy Society

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kybN4dlBA5c

By Dr. William L. Pierce

I'VE SPOKEN BEFORE about the deliberately destructive role of the mass media in American society. I've talked about the psychology of liberalism, about what makes liberals do the crazy and destructive things they do. Today, though, instead of talking about the enemies of our society, the enemies of our people, let's just talk about our people and the sort of society that we need.

You know, a society is a very complex thing: it is like a living organism. It responds to selective environmental forces, and it evolves. In past ages it was the struggle of our people to survive, the competition of our people against other peoples, other races, which determined the nature of our society. Societies which functioned well survived. Societies which didn't function well perished. Historically, if some crazy liberal came along and were able to change all of the rules and structures in a society to suit some egalitarian fantasy of his, the society would sink like a rock, and its people would perish. And that's what's happening to our society today, although it may not be apparent to us because of the time scale. After the experimenters finish their deadly work, it may take a society 200 years to disintegrate completely and sink out of sight. That's not long from a historical viewpoint, but it's long enough so that most of the people involved never realize what's happening to them.

The society we had in Europe up until the end of the 18th century — or one may say, the various national societies there, which really were very much alike when compared with any non-European society — this European society had evolved over a period of many, many generations of our people, and it had fine-tuned itself to our special nature; it had developed its institutions and its ways of doing things which suited us as a people and allowed us to form viable, efficient communities. And when we colonized North America and other parts of the world, we brought the essential elements of our society with us.

Has the White Race Become Too Liberal to Survive?

This editorial is a condensation of a talk given by Dr. William Pierce (pictured) at the weekly Sunday-evening meeting of Washington-area members, supporters, and friends of the National Alliance on June 5, 1977.

by Dr. William L. Pierce

IF YOU HAVEN'T yet read Jean Raspail’s best-selling horror story, The Camp of the Saints, you should. Reading it is not a pleasant experience, but it is a valuable experience, a consciousness-raising experience.

The essence of Raspail’s book is an unarmed, non-violent invasion of Europe by a starving horde of refugees from India. The Europeans, who are morally paralyzed by a terminal case of liberalism, are unable to resist the invasion. In particular, they are unable to accept the only feasible method for opposing it, which is simply to exterminate the invaders en masse. So the wave of brown subhumanity rolls over Europe, and Western civilization is extinguished forever.

Raspail’s fiction is especially terrifying for White American readers, because we can clearly recognize, all around us, exactly the symptoms of the liberal disease which Raspail describes so starkly in his book. In fact, we can see a painfully close analogy between the European reaction to the fictional invasion which takes place in the book and our own reaction to the very real invasion of the United States by illegal immigrants from Mexico which is taking place today.

Solzhenitsyn and the Liberals

by Dr. William L. Pierce

Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Henry Kissinger
contemptuously described the red-headed
Russian literary giant as "to the right
of the czars."

WHEN ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN, the Russian dissident writer who was exiled by the Soviet government in February, recently shouted at a group of Western newsmen, “You are worse than the KGB (Soviet secret police, equivalent to our FBI),” they were understandably hurt. After all, had not the newsmen of the democratic West made a great folk-hero of Solzhenitsyn, praising him to the skies at every opportunity? Had they not publicized his books for years, leading to their widespread sales outside the Soviet Union — and to a Nobel Prize for Literature for him in 1970? 

Khrushchev Goofed Too

Alas, the neo-liberal media masters of the West were finding to their sorrow that they had misjudged their man as badly as the communist masters of the Kremlin had earlier.

Solzhenitsyn’s world renown as a writer began in 1962, when Nikita Khrushchev sponsored the Soviet publication of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, an autobiographical novel of Solzhenitsyn’s experiences as a prisoner in Stalin’s death camps. Khrushchev was promoting the de-Stalinization of the Soviet Union, and Solzhenitsyn’s criticism of Stalinism fitted the party line perfectly at that time.

The Jewish Problem

This anti-Jewish-immigration cartoon from Life magazine, October 5, 1911, gives a striking
reminder of how the media have changed after falling under Jewish control. The caption reads "These pills
make me grow, mother, but the more I take the worse I feel."

by Dr. William L. Pierce

FOR THE LAST three decades there has been, in this land of free speech and a free press, an almost universally observed taboo on one topic of overwhelming importance: the Jewish question. Until about the last year or two, in fact, it was hardly permissible to even hint at the existence of such an issue, much less to discuss it openly.

Now the subject has been broached, not by our own people — for whom it has the most crucial importance — but, interestingly enough, by the Jews themselves, who successfully imposed the taboo on it in the first place.

One cannot pick up a major newspaper today without reading about “the Jewish vote” in the recent Presidential election, or which candidate got the most “Jewish money,” or which senators are blocking further Russian trade agreements until the Russians make more concessions on “the Jewish issue,” and so on.

Portnoy's Complaint: A Goyische View

A Portnoy's Complaint poster from 1972.

by Dr. William L. Pierce

ATTACK! CERTAINLY does not want to establish a reputation as a pander for the skin-flick trade, but we are going out on a limb just once and recommending that all our readers see the movie Portnoy’s Complaint.

Actually there’s very little skin to be seen in this flick, although it is decidedly pornographic. The peg on which the film is hung is a young Jew’s problem with masturbation. 

Fixation on Genitalia

If the viewer can stomach the peculiarly Jewish fixation on genitalia and human excretory functions which pervades the film, there is a reward for him: namely, a fleeting glimpse at the traditional Jewish attitude toward Gentiles — or the goyim, as Portnoy and his family would say.