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.

The Trouble With Conservatism

Dr. Pierce predicted today’s shift to the right by Jews — and the fatal flaw in conservative groups like the Tea Party movement.

by Dr. William L. Pierce

LAST YEAR a group of sick, guilt-ridden Dutch liberals in the Netherlands formed an anti-racist group, the Person-to-Person Committee, for the purpose of fighting apartheid among the Dutch-descended Afrikaners of South Africa. They distributed packets of postcards to Dutch schoolchildren, each card bearing a printed message attacking apartheid and a photograph of an alleged “atrocity” by South Africa’s police and defense forces against Black “freedom fighters.” Each schoolchild was asked to add his return address and sign his name to the postcard and then mail it to an Afrikaner chosen at random from a South African telephone directory.

The South African response to this poison-pen campaign was to organize the Afrikaans-Dutch Working Group, which prepared its own postcards to be mailed back to the Dutch children. Each card bore a photograph of South Africa’s renowned heart-transplant pioneer, Professor Christiaan Barnard, holding and comforting a Negro baby. The printed message on the card was: “We are not the Black-haters many of you think we are.”

When I read the account of this episode in a recent issue of the South African Digest, a weekly public-relations magazine published by the South African government, I thought to myself, “How typically conservative!”

In fact, the pride with which the postcard ploy was related meshes perfectly with the whole tone of the conservative South African government’s stance toward its critics. Each issue of the South African Digest is filled with articles which say, in effect, what the Barnard postcard said. They cite example after example of new concessions to Blacks; of millions of dollars of White South Africans’ tax money being spent on shiny, new schools and hospitals for Blacks; of a 500 per cent increase in the wages of Black workers in the mining industry between 1970 and 1977; of the step-by-step dismantling of the South African policy of apartheid.

They say to the world: “Look how good we are to our Blacks. We are not racists. We only want what is best for all South Africans, Black and White. We don’t shoot Black terrorists and rioters for being Black but only for being communists and lawbreakers. We have a conservative, law-and-order, anti-communist government.”

The Holocaust Problem

by Dr. William L. Pierce

A LOS ANGELES COUNTY Superior Court judge ruled last month that the so-called “Holocaust” — the alleged extermination of six million Jews by Germany’s National Socialist government during the Second World War — is a historical fact and “is not reasonably subject to dispute.” The ruling was the outcome of a lawsuit by a Jewish concentration camp “survivor,” Mel Mermelstein, now a successful Long Beach, Calif., businessman, against the publishers of a “revisionist” historical periodical, The Journal of Historical Review. (ILLUSTRATION: Buchenwald concentration camp, May 1945: Why were there so many “survivors,” if the German plan was to exterminate all Jews? Jews were put behind barbed wire in Germany during the Second World War for exactly the same reason Japanese were locked up in the United States: because they could not be trusted. Many American “liberators” of Germany’s concentration camp eventually reached the conclusion that the world would have been better off, however, if there had been no survivors, but few had the moral courage to say it. General George Patton was an exception. After becoming well acquainted with the nature of the people [officially called “Displaced Persons”] his troops freed from Germany’s concentration camps, he noted in his diary in September 1945: “Harrison [a U.S. State Department official] and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals.”)

The only real purpose of the periodical — the claims of its publishers notwithstanding — was to cast doubt on Jewish Holocaust claims, and that purpose has been reflected in the pages of each issue. As a promotional stunt The Journal of Historical Review rashly offered a $50,000 reward to anyone who could prove that a single Jew was killed in a gas chamber by the German government during the Second World War. Mermelstein accepted the challenge; sued when, he alleged, the publishers reneged on their $50,000 offer; and won his case.

Learning to Get Along

by Dr. William L. Pierce

I SPOKE recently with an Alliance member just back from a year in Zaire (the former Belgian Congo). He is a government scientist who is obliged to spend most of his time in rather odd places: African jungles, Arabian deserts, polar icecaps, and the like. While in Zaire he took advantage of every opportunity to avail himself of White company, which is all too scarce there, and he became intimately familiar with the attitudes and ways of thinking of the permanent White residents of that country. The story he told me about his experiences chilled my blood — the more so because it had the solid ring of truth and agreed with reports from other places, such as Rhodesia (now “Zimbabwe”). (ILLUSTRATION: Whites joining Blacks in cheering for anti-White policies in South Africa)

What our member said, in essence, is that the Whites in Zaire have “gone native.” After two weeks of work in the bush, our member would return to Kinshasa hungry for the sight of a White face. But the Whites, in the part of Kinshasa which used to be Leopoldville, outnumbered now more than 100 to one by Blacks, have managed to blend into the landscape so thoroughly that one can only pick them out of the Black crowds by the color of their skin; nothing else distinguishes them. One of them will pass another White on the sidewalk — perhaps the only other White he has encountered all day — without even a glance. To accost one of them is almost an affront; the attitude is, “Why should I stop to talk with you? You are nothing special to me.”

Learning to Get Along

by Dr. William L. Pierce

I SPOKE recently with an Alliance member just back from a year in Zaire (the former Belgian Congo). He is a government scientist who is obliged to spend most of his time in rather odd places: African jungles, Arabian deserts, polar icecaps, and the like. While in Zaire he took advantage of every opportunity to avail himself of White company, which is all too scarce there, and he became intimately familiar with the attitudes and ways of thinking of the permanent White residents of that country. The story he told me about his experiences chilled my blood — the more so because it had the solid ring of truth and agreed with reports from other places, such as Rhodesia (now “Zimbabwe”). (ILLUSTRATION: Whites joining Blacks in cheering for anti-White policies in South Africa)

What our member said, in essence, is that the Whites in Zaire have “gone native.” After two weeks of work in the bush, our member would return to Kinshasa hungry for the sight of a White face. But the Whites, in the part of Kinshasa which used to be Leopoldville, outnumbered now more than 100 to one by Blacks, have managed to blend into the landscape so thoroughly that one can only pick them out of the Black crowds by the color of their skin; nothing else distinguishes them. One of them will pass another White on the sidewalk — perhaps the only other White he has encountered all day — without even a glance. To accost one of them is almost an affront; the attitude is, “Why should I stop to talk with you? You are nothing special to me.”

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.