Leftist Fears of the National Alliance

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THE LEFT HAS been doing a lot of moaning recently about “the rise of fascism” in America. Painting Ronald Reagan as an authoritarian bigot who aims to undo the civil rights “gains” of the last 30 years by putting Blacks back “in their place." The more wild-eyed elements on the left had gone so far as to claim that the Ku Klux Klan and other militant pro-White groups are secretly linked to the Reagan administration and have the government’s blessing when they “terrorize” minorities. That sort of hokum is good for coaxing contributions out of rich, left-wing Jews and their twittering bird-brains of White liberaldom.

The leaders and theoreticians of the radical left know better, of course, and among themselves they are more realistic. They know that White nationalists are hated and harassed by the Federal bureaucracy whether the man in the White House is a Carter or a Reagan. But they are genuinely concerned about one fairly new development: the ongoing radicalization of White groups, both in America and in Europe. In their publications they are warning one another that White action based on a coherent, fundamental, unifying ideology presents a far greater danger to them than the parochial and essentially conservative White reaction of the past.

In this the leftists are entirely correct. And it is interesting to note that the National Alliance has been singled out by at least one radical-leftists publication as the most dangerous of all White nationalist organizations, despite the fact that the Alliance has avoided headline-grabbing public activity and is still a rather small organization numerically. It is ideas, not right-wing publicity stunts which the enemies of a White future fear — and rightly so. And because the Alliance has been foremost in the formulation and propagation of ideas, the more intelligent leftists see it as the top threat to their own schemes.

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.

Liberals, the Jews, and Israel

by Dr. William L. Pierce

THE CURRENT JEWISH power play in the Middle East poses the gravest imaginable dangers to America. Yet, in the midst of these dangers is a development which offers the promise of great good to the American people. That good is the disruption of the American liberal establishment and the extensive undermining of the traditional alliance between Jews and Gentile liberals.

Neo-Liberal Stalwarts

The Palestine crisis has caused a major falling out among the architects of American decline and degeneration. We are presented with the interesting spectacle of such neo-liberal stalwarts as Reverend Daniel Berrigan, Senator J.W. Fulbright, and syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, among others, turning against both their fellow liberals and their Jewish patrons in the news media and siding with the Palestinians in the Jew-Arab conflict in the Middle East.

One of the many ironies of this is that the very liberals who are now in such a state of ideological disarray and moral torment over the issue of Jewish imperialism and aggression in the Middle East laid the groundwork themselves for that imperialism and aggression more than a quarter-century ago by supporting the initial Zionist seizures of Arab territory.

Jewish Soap

Daniel Berrigan

At that time — in the years immediately following World War II — Jews could do no wrong in liberal eyes. They were then, even more successfully than now, exploiting their role as “victims” of National Socialist persecution. They parlayed pitiful tales of gas chambers and soap factories into a carte blanche for their postwar political designs, relying heavily on support from beguiled liberal Gentiles.

It is interesting to note that liberals, who have always insisted that a person must be judged only as an individual and not as a member of a racial or ethnic group, accepted without hesitation the thesis that the Jews, as a people, were entitled to immunity from criticism and to collective reparations for the disabilities which some individuals among them, no longer present for the most part, had suffered earlier in Germany.

Butchers in U.S. Uniforms

J.W. Fulbright

Furthermore, the same liberals who so passionately commiserated with the Jews after the war were startlingly oblivious to atrocities committed against peoples far less blameworthy than the Jews in Germany: the postwar massacre of the Cossacks by the Soviet secret police, for example, or the slaughter of half a million anticommunist Croats by Tito’s communist guerrillas in 1945. Liberal writers who condemned in the harshest terms the German practice of shooting Jewish political commissars whenever they were discovered among captured Soviet troops, refer in an indifferent and offhand way to the brutal torture and murder of tens of thousands of German SS men, the elite of their nation, who, after they had laid down their arms and surrendered, were turned over to Jews in U.S. Army uniforms to be castrated, used for bayonet practice, and subjected to other tortures too gruesome to recount.

Left-Wing Tradition

One cannot blame this historic inability of liberals to recognize persecution, except when a Jew happens to be the persecutee, on the liberal bias toward left-wing causes and governments with which Jews have traditionally been associated. The Soviet government, for example, was immune from criticism so long as it occupied itself with the butchering of Ukrainians, Cossacks, Latvians, Poles, etc. But when the Kremlin decided the time had come to put a foot down on Zionist agitators on its own doorstep, liberal publicists suddenly turned against the Soviet Union with a vengeance.

Professional Victims

Rowland Evans

No, there is a very special relationship between Gentile liberals and Jews, and it began long before World War II.

Jews, of course, have been playing the “persecution” angle for all it is worth throughout their long and turbulent history. In a sense they have made a living — generally, a very good living — off being “scapegoats.”

Before the Germans it was the Russian Czars who persecuted this race of professional “victims,” and before them it was the Polish peasants, and the Spanish Inquisitors, and the English yeomen, and the French Crusaders, and the Roman legions, all the way back to the Egyptian Pharaohs. Westerners, and not just the liberals among them, have always been suckers for a cleverly managed act of martyrdom.

Symbiosis

But there is more to it — much more. From the time when the Jews were emancipated from their European ghettos and began infiltrating the institutions and the cultural and political life of the Western peoples among whom they lived, there developed a symbiotic relationship between Jews and Gentile liberals.

Jews are, in a sense, the carriers of the neo-liberal virus — that is, of the disease in its modern form, which differs substantially from what was called ”’liberalism” prior to the 19^th century.

Robert Novak

Having lived throughout 4,000 years of recorded history as an alien minority among other peoples, Jews have developed a unique modus vivendi which depends critically upon preventing their hosts from forming a united front against them and restricting their activities. They must, much in the way certain bloodsucking insects inject a venom into their host in order to break down its body tissues and permit the easier withdrawal of nourishment, break down all barriers of race and culture which protect a host people from them.

Potent Venom

Otherwise the natural protective reactions to their presence in the body of the host will result in their being either expelled or encysted, as has happened repeatedly throughout history.

Neo-liberalism is the most potent tissue-dissolving venom which the Jews have developed for breaking down the institutions and the internal structure of the Western nations. Gentiles infected by the disease have opened the door of one Western institution after another to the Jews during the past 200 years and have then provided “cover” for their activities.

Automatic Suckers

The Jews are an extraordinarily clever, ambitious, and aggressive people, and they have used their cleverness to evoke an almost worshipful attitude toward them on the part of Gentile liberals, who have been hypnotized by the Jews’ apparent “brilliance,” “creativity,” and “sensitivity.” In this hyper-receptive state, the liberals have been automatic suckers for every new fad the Jews have trotted out, from the most perverse and destructive trends in modern painting and sculpture to the pornographic “literary” blather of Philip Roth and Norman Mailer.

From the Jews they have learned to venerate the ugly, the weak, the deformed, the impure, the unnatural, the chaotic. The Jews have inverted their sense of values and taught them to coddle and promote Blacks, mongrels, criminals, moral cripples and perverts of every sort, and, above all, those rejected and “persecuted” by society.

Ill-Gotten Lucre

None have ever more successfully used the gimmick of portraying themselves as a persecuted minority, the unfortunate and blameless victims of religious and racial discrimination, than the Jews.

This was easy for them at a time when, as pushcart peddlers and pawnbrokers, they could speak only broken English and were ostracized from polite society. But only the special relationship which has grown up between liberals and Jews can account for their being able to maintain this pretense after they had gotten rid of their Yiddish accents (Henry Kissinger excepted) and were rolling in ill-gotten lucre from Hollywood to Broadway.

Monopolists

Liberals still thought of them as downtrodden people, especially deserving of sympathy and protection, after they had monopolized half the schools of law, medicine, and journalism in America, had elbowed the last of their Gentile competitors out of the clothing industry and a dozen other major industries, and had established themselves as the single most powerful bloc on Wall Street, with Jewish financial houses (Kuhn, Loeb & Co.; Goldman, Sachs; J.W Seligman & Co.; Lehman Bros.; Dillon, Read; Speyer & Co.; Ladenburg-Thalman; Salomon Bros.) overshadowing the older Gentile firms.

In recent years, lest all this opulence and power confuse their liberal admirers, the Jews have used their control of the mass media to crank out a steady stream of motion pictures, books, and Sunday-supplement articles rehashing over and over again their mistreatment at the hands of the Germans a generation ago, thus maintaining their status as a persecuted minority.

Easy Choice

But, irony of ironies, it was this very bias in favor of the underdog which finally caused the liberals to miss an ideological turn the Jews had mapped out for them and to go off on the “wrong” road in the Middle East.

After all, here were a bunch of arrogant, militaristic, racist, imperialistic Jews on one side (the Israelis), rolling in billions of dollars of “reparations” extorted from Germany and grants from the United States, and armed to the teeth with an enormous arsenal of fancy, new, technological weapons, waging aggressive war against huddled, penniless, tattered Arab refugees living in tents and armed only with rifles and hand grenades (the Palestinians). It was pretty obvious which side a person conditioned always to favor the underdog should choose.

Over-conditioned Liberals

The situation is reminiscent of that accompanying the Italian invasion of Ethiopia nearly 40 years ago, when the liberal sympathy for the Ethiopians, brown and backward, was Pavlovian. Since then they have been conditioned repeatedly by the news media, most notably in the Korean and Vietnamese wars, to side with the guerrillas, the irregulars, the “freedom fighters,” against the establishment troops. In the Middle East all this conditioning has backfired on the Jews.

They have tried to use their control over the mass media to paint a propaganda picture of Israel as an underdog nation and to identify the wretched, dispossessed Palestinians with their oil-rich Arab neighbors. But this portrayal has been too grotesque for credibility. The Israeli concentration camps, the racism practiced against the Arab minority in the Jewish-occupied areas, the Israeli policies of imprisonment without trial, of collective reprisals against Arab civilians, of arrogantly trampling on the sovereignty of Lebanon, of torture of prisoners — all these have triggered conditioned reflexes in American liberals.

Ideological Consistency

And the result is, wonder of wonders, that the liberals—or, at least, a significant fraction of them—are accidentally ending up on the right side of an issue for once. They are, in growing numbers, taking the side of Arafat and his Palestinian freedom fighters instead of the side of their Jewish oppressors.

The pro-Palestinian position is by no means unanimous among liberals, of course. It is taken only by the honest ones, by the ideologically consistent ones.

The Jews still have a plentiful stable of obedient liberal hacks on their payroll — 95 per cent of the Congress, for example, and thousands of newspaper prostitutes, pulpit prostitutes, academic prostitutes, and showbiz prostitutes — all dancing to the Zionist tune in order to earn their supper. For every Senator Fulbright there are half-a-dozen Hubert Humphreys and “Scoop” Jacksons, and for every Evans and Novak there are three or four Joseph Alsops.

No Collaboration

Furthermore, it would be a severe miscalculation to plan on any sort of coalition or collaboration between honest liberals and patriots in order to break the Jewish stranglehold on America.

Liberals — with a very few individual exceptions — have had no real change of heart. They are quite insistent that their anti-Zionist position in no way implies any basic change in their attitude toward Jews. They simply regard Zionists as Jews who have gone bad and Zionism as a racist aberration, rather than as the essence of Jewishness itself.

Table-leg Therapy

Senator Fulbright and the Reverend Berrigan are still on the wrong side of every issue except Palestine, and they are on the right side of that issue for the wrong reasons.

In other words, liberals — including the consistent ones — are just as sick as ever and just as dangerous to the future of America as ever. The only way the great majority of them will get their thinking straight, eventually, is with a sturdy, oak table leg applied smartly and repeatedly alongside the head.

Nevertheless, the present dissension in liberal ranks is of inestimable value. It is the most fervent and influential of the liberals who are now taking an anti-Zionist position, and their numbers and influence are growing daily.

Palestinian Victory Inevitable

The Palestinian people, through their perseverance, their sacrifices, their reckless courage, and their determination to use any and all means to keep the world from forgetting about them, have finally succeeded in obtaining, in the United Nations, a forum for presenting their case to the world. More and more liberals will be forced to listen to them, and more and more liberals cannot help but agree with them.

And Israel’s intransigence and arrogance, exacerbated by recent Palestinian propaganda successes, will become more painfully obvious to her former admirers. Who could have failed to be repelled by that shrieking, cursing mob of swarthy, wiry-haired Israelites outside the United Nations building in New York in November, spitting and screaming for Yasser Arafat’s blood as he eloquently pleaded his case for justice for his people inside?

Cracks Will Widen

All this can only lead to a widening of the cracks which have already appeared in the System: the liberal-Jewish power structure which rules America. These cracks offer patriots an opportunity they have not had in the last 35 years to build opposition to the System and to win support for an alternative.

The Jews, of course, are fully aware of this. They can feel the tide of liberal opinion finally turning against them or, at least, against their territorial ambitions in the Middle East — and they are far-sighted enough to see the long-range dangers this tide can bring them.

“The New Anti-Semitism“

They have frantically tried to head it off by denouncing as “anti-Semitism” every manifestation of anti-Zionism. Their principal “enforcement” agency in America, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, has sponsored the publication of a widely touted book, The New Anti-Semitism, which singles out by name many prominent liberals who have taken a public stand even slightly critical of Israel and attempts to stigmatize them with an “anti-Semitic” label.

In days past, the threat of being called an anti-Semite was enough to send the bravest liberal scurrying for cover, but this tactic isn’t working any more. In fact, it’s backfiring on the Jews.

Nature of the Beast

The Palestine issue is too clear-cut, and the liberals who have finally made a moral decision on this issue are standing their ground. Being called “anti-Semites,” instead of frightening them, is calling to their attention, for the first time, the true nature of the beast with which they are dealing. It is merely hardening their position, burning the bridges between them and their former unquestioning philo-Semitism, and — in a very few cases — causing them to re-examine the whole basis of their ideology.

Rising Panic

These developments are causing a rising feeling of panic in the Jewish community. Always ready to cry before they are hurt, some Jews have even claimed, with a tinge of hysteria, “It’s happening again!” (a reference to their growing unpopularity in Germany in the 1930s).

More than anything else, the changing tide of liberal opinion may cause the Jews to overreach themselves by attempting a “final solution” of their Arab problem in the Middle East before they lose too much more ground in America.

If that happens, America will undoubtedly become involved in another war and will probably suffer grievous consequences. But, as General Brown suggested, it also might be exactly what is needed to change the present liberal ground swell against Zionism to a popular tidal wave against all Jewish influences in America.

* * *

From Attack! No. 32, 1975

transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

Liberals, the Jews, and Israel

by Dr. William L. Pierce

THE CURRENT JEWISH power play in the Middle East poses the gravest imaginable dangers to America. Yet, in the midst of these dangers is a development which offers the promise of great good to the American people. That good is the disruption of the American liberal establishment and the extensive undermining of the traditional alliance between Jews and Gentile liberals.

Neo-Liberal Stalwarts

The Palestine crisis has caused a major falling out among the architects of American decline and degeneration. We are presented with the interesting spectacle of such neo-liberal stalwarts as Reverend Daniel Berrigan, Senator J.W. Fulbright, and syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, among others, turning against both their fellow liberals and their Jewish patrons in the news media and siding with the Palestinians in the Jew-Arab conflict in the Middle East.

One of the many ironies of this is that the very liberals who are now in such a state of ideological disarray and moral torment over the issue of Jewish imperialism and aggression in the Middle East laid the groundwork themselves for that imperialism and aggression more than a quarter-century ago by supporting the initial Zionist seizures of Arab territory.

Jewish Soap

Daniel Berrigan

At that time — in the years immediately following World War II — Jews could do no wrong in liberal eyes. They were then, even more successfully than now, exploiting their role as “victims” of National Socialist persecution. They parlayed pitiful tales of gas chambers and soap factories into a carte blanche for their postwar political designs, relying heavily on support from beguiled liberal Gentiles.

It is interesting to note that liberals, who have always insisted that a person must be judged only as an individual and not as a member of a racial or ethnic group, accepted without hesitation the thesis that the Jews, as a people, were entitled to immunity from criticism and to collective reparations for the disabilities which some individuals among them, no longer present for the most part, had suffered earlier in Germany.

Butchers in U.S. Uniforms

J.W. Fulbright

Furthermore, the same liberals who so passionately commiserated with the Jews after the war were startlingly oblivious to atrocities committed against peoples far less blameworthy than the Jews in Germany: the postwar massacre of the Cossacks by the Soviet secret police, for example, or the slaughter of half a million anticommunist Croats by Tito’s communist guerrillas in 1945. Liberal writers who condemned in the harshest terms the German practice of shooting Jewish political commissars whenever they were discovered among captured Soviet troops, refer in an indifferent and offhand way to the brutal torture and murder of tens of thousands of German SS men, the elite of their nation, who, after they had laid down their arms and surrendered, were turned over to Jews in U.S. Army uniforms to be castrated, used for bayonet practice, and subjected to other tortures too gruesome to recount.

Left-Wing Tradition

One cannot blame this historic inability of liberals to recognize persecution, except when a Jew happens to be the persecutee, on the liberal bias toward left-wing causes and governments with which Jews have traditionally been associated. The Soviet government, for example, was immune from criticism so long as it occupied itself with the butchering of Ukrainians, Cossacks, Latvians, Poles, etc. But when the Kremlin decided the time had come to put a foot down on Zionist agitators on its own doorstep, liberal publicists suddenly turned against the Soviet Union with a vengeance.

Professional Victims

Rowland Evans

No, there is a very special relationship between Gentile liberals and Jews, and it began long before World War II.

Jews, of course, have been playing the “persecution” angle for all it is worth throughout their long and turbulent history. In a sense they have made a living — generally, a very good living — off being “scapegoats.”

Before the Germans it was the Russian Czars who persecuted this race of professional “victims,” and before them it was the Polish peasants, and the Spanish Inquisitors, and the English yeomen, and the French Crusaders, and the Roman legions, all the way back to the Egyptian Pharaohs. Westerners, and not just the liberals among them, have always been suckers for a cleverly managed act of martyrdom.

Symbiosis

But there is more to it — much more. From the time when the Jews were emancipated from their European ghettos and began infiltrating the institutions and the cultural and political life of the Western peoples among whom they lived, there developed a symbiotic relationship between Jews and Gentile liberals.

Jews are, in a sense, the carriers of the neo-liberal virus — that is, of the disease in its modern form, which differs substantially from what was called ”’liberalism” prior to the 19^th century.

Robert Novak

Having lived throughout 4,000 years of recorded history as an alien minority among other peoples, Jews have developed a unique modus vivendi which depends critically upon preventing their hosts from forming a united front against them and restricting their activities. They must, much in the way certain bloodsucking insects inject a venom into their host in order to break down its body tissues and permit the easier withdrawal of nourishment, break down all barriers of race and culture which protect a host people from them.

Potent Venom

Otherwise the natural protective reactions to their presence in the body of the host will result in their being either expelled or encysted, as has happened repeatedly throughout history.

Neo-liberalism is the most potent tissue-dissolving venom which the Jews have developed for breaking down the institutions and the internal structure of the Western nations. Gentiles infected by the disease have opened the door of one Western institution after another to the Jews during the past 200 years and have then provided “cover” for their activities.

Automatic Suckers

The Jews are an extraordinarily clever, ambitious, and aggressive people, and they have used their cleverness to evoke an almost worshipful attitude toward them on the part of Gentile liberals, who have been hypnotized by the Jews’ apparent “brilliance,” “creativity,” and “sensitivity.” In this hyper-receptive state, the liberals have been automatic suckers for every new fad the Jews have trotted out, from the most perverse and destructive trends in modern painting and sculpture to the pornographic “literary” blather of Philip Roth and Norman Mailer.

From the Jews they have learned to venerate the ugly, the weak, the deformed, the impure, the unnatural, the chaotic. The Jews have inverted their sense of values and taught them to coddle and promote Blacks, mongrels, criminals, moral cripples and perverts of every sort, and, above all, those rejected and “persecuted” by society.

Ill-Gotten Lucre

None have ever more successfully used the gimmick of portraying themselves as a persecuted minority, the unfortunate and blameless victims of religious and racial discrimination, than the Jews.

This was easy for them at a time when, as pushcart peddlers and pawnbrokers, they could speak only broken English and were ostracized from polite society. But only the special relationship which has grown up between liberals and Jews can account for their being able to maintain this pretense after they had gotten rid of their Yiddish accents (Henry Kissinger excepted) and were rolling in ill-gotten lucre from Hollywood to Broadway.

Monopolists

Liberals still thought of them as downtrodden people, especially deserving of sympathy and protection, after they had monopolized half the schools of law, medicine, and journalism in America, had elbowed the last of their Gentile competitors out of the clothing industry and a dozen other major industries, and had established themselves as the single most powerful bloc on Wall Street, with Jewish financial houses (Kuhn, Loeb & Co.; Goldman, Sachs; J.W Seligman & Co.; Lehman Bros.; Dillon, Read; Speyer & Co.; Ladenburg-Thalman; Salomon Bros.) overshadowing the older Gentile firms.

In recent years, lest all this opulence and power confuse their liberal admirers, the Jews have used their control of the mass media to crank out a steady stream of motion pictures, books, and Sunday-supplement articles rehashing over and over again their mistreatment at the hands of the Germans a generation ago, thus maintaining their status as a persecuted minority.

Easy Choice

But, irony of ironies, it was this very bias in favor of the underdog which finally caused the liberals to miss an ideological turn the Jews had mapped out for them and to go off on the “wrong” road in the Middle East.

After all, here were a bunch of arrogant, militaristic, racist, imperialistic Jews on one side (the Israelis), rolling in billions of dollars of “reparations” extorted from Germany and grants from the United States, and armed to the teeth with an enormous arsenal of fancy, new, technological weapons, waging aggressive war against huddled, penniless, tattered Arab refugees living in tents and armed only with rifles and hand grenades (the Palestinians). It was pretty obvious which side a person conditioned always to favor the underdog should choose.

Over-conditioned Liberals

The situation is reminiscent of that accompanying the Italian invasion of Ethiopia nearly 40 years ago, when the liberal sympathy for the Ethiopians, brown and backward, was Pavlovian. Since then they have been conditioned repeatedly by the news media, most notably in the Korean and Vietnamese wars, to side with the guerrillas, the irregulars, the “freedom fighters,” against the establishment troops. In the Middle East all this conditioning has backfired on the Jews.

They have tried to use their control over the mass media to paint a propaganda picture of Israel as an underdog nation and to identify the wretched, dispossessed Palestinians with their oil-rich Arab neighbors. But this portrayal has been too grotesque for credibility. The Israeli concentration camps, the racism practiced against the Arab minority in the Jewish-occupied areas, the Israeli policies of imprisonment without trial, of collective reprisals against Arab civilians, of arrogantly trampling on the sovereignty of Lebanon, of torture of prisoners — all these have triggered conditioned reflexes in American liberals.

Ideological Consistency

And the result is, wonder of wonders, that the liberals—or, at least, a significant fraction of them—are accidentally ending up on the right side of an issue for once. They are, in growing numbers, taking the side of Arafat and his Palestinian freedom fighters instead of the side of their Jewish oppressors.

The pro-Palestinian position is by no means unanimous among liberals, of course. It is taken only by the honest ones, by the ideologically consistent ones.

The Jews still have a plentiful stable of obedient liberal hacks on their payroll — 95 per cent of the Congress, for example, and thousands of newspaper prostitutes, pulpit prostitutes, academic prostitutes, and showbiz prostitutes — all dancing to the Zionist tune in order to earn their supper. For every Senator Fulbright there are half-a-dozen Hubert Humphreys and “Scoop” Jacksons, and for every Evans and Novak there are three or four Joseph Alsops.

No Collaboration

Furthermore, it would be a severe miscalculation to plan on any sort of coalition or collaboration between honest liberals and patriots in order to break the Jewish stranglehold on America.

Liberals — with a very few individual exceptions — have had no real change of heart. They are quite insistent that their anti-Zionist position in no way implies any basic change in their attitude toward Jews. They simply regard Zionists as Jews who have gone bad and Zionism as a racist aberration, rather than as the essence of Jewishness itself.

Table-leg Therapy

Senator Fulbright and the Reverend Berrigan are still on the wrong side of every issue except Palestine, and they are on the right side of that issue for the wrong reasons.

In other words, liberals — including the consistent ones — are just as sick as ever and just as dangerous to the future of America as ever. The only way the great majority of them will get their thinking straight, eventually, is with a sturdy, oak table leg applied smartly and repeatedly alongside the head.

Nevertheless, the present dissension in liberal ranks is of inestimable value. It is the most fervent and influential of the liberals who are now taking an anti-Zionist position, and their numbers and influence are growing daily.

Palestinian Victory Inevitable

The Palestinian people, through their perseverance, their sacrifices, their reckless courage, and their determination to use any and all means to keep the world from forgetting about them, have finally succeeded in obtaining, in the United Nations, a forum for presenting their case to the world. More and more liberals will be forced to listen to them, and more and more liberals cannot help but agree with them.

And Israel’s intransigence and arrogance, exacerbated by recent Palestinian propaganda successes, will become more painfully obvious to her former admirers. Who could have failed to be repelled by that shrieking, cursing mob of swarthy, wiry-haired Israelites outside the United Nations building in New York in November, spitting and screaming for Yasser Arafat’s blood as he eloquently pleaded his case for justice for his people inside?

Cracks Will Widen

All this can only lead to a widening of the cracks which have already appeared in the System: the liberal-Jewish power structure which rules America. These cracks offer patriots an opportunity they have not had in the last 35 years to build opposition to the System and to win support for an alternative.

The Jews, of course, are fully aware of this. They can feel the tide of liberal opinion finally turning against them or, at least, against their territorial ambitions in the Middle East — and they are far-sighted enough to see the long-range dangers this tide can bring them.

“The New Anti-Semitism“

They have frantically tried to head it off by denouncing as “anti-Semitism” every manifestation of anti-Zionism. Their principal “enforcement” agency in America, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, has sponsored the publication of a widely touted book, The New Anti-Semitism, which singles out by name many prominent liberals who have taken a public stand even slightly critical of Israel and attempts to stigmatize them with an “anti-Semitic” label.

In days past, the threat of being called an anti-Semite was enough to send the bravest liberal scurrying for cover, but this tactic isn’t working any more. In fact, it’s backfiring on the Jews.

Nature of the Beast

The Palestine issue is too clear-cut, and the liberals who have finally made a moral decision on this issue are standing their ground. Being called “anti-Semites,” instead of frightening them, is calling to their attention, for the first time, the true nature of the beast with which they are dealing. It is merely hardening their position, burning the bridges between them and their former unquestioning philo-Semitism, and — in a very few cases — causing them to re-examine the whole basis of their ideology.

Rising Panic

These developments are causing a rising feeling of panic in the Jewish community. Always ready to cry before they are hurt, some Jews have even claimed, with a tinge of hysteria, “It’s happening again!” (a reference to their growing unpopularity in Germany in the 1930s).

More than anything else, the changing tide of liberal opinion may cause the Jews to overreach themselves by attempting a “final solution” of their Arab problem in the Middle East before they lose too much more ground in America.

If that happens, America will undoubtedly become involved in another war and will probably suffer grievous consequences. But, as General Brown suggested, it also might be exactly what is needed to change the present liberal ground swell against Zionism to a popular tidal wave against all Jewish influences in America.

* * *

From Attack! No. 32, 1975

transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

A World Gone Mad

From lecture by Dr. Pierce on January 30, 1977 at the office of the National Office in Arlington, Virginia. It also appeared in the National Alliance Members BULLETIN:

A World Gone Mad  

 by Dr. William Pierce 

A few days ago I was looking through a batch of pamphlets and leaflets published by various groups at Portland State University, which MS brought here with him from Oregon. Some of the material was published by a homosexual group calling itself “Men’s Resource Center,” and the interesting thing about it was that, if one skipped over the explicitly homosexual statements, the material read just about like the great bulk of the garbage published by non-homosexual, White, liberal groups which is continually coming across my desk That is, it has the same general tone, the same general feeling. It all reflects basically the same sick and perverted view of life, whether it is form some Christian church group appealing for funds to fight racism in South Africa or from a local so-called “fair housing” group in Fairfax County, which puts out a monthly mimeographed bulletin.

As an example of this similarity, one of the publications of the queer group in Portland is a leaflet announcing a men’s potluck dinner at the home of one of the members and requesting, in small print at the bottom, that no one bring any table grapes or head lettuce or Gallo wine -- the reason being, of course, that the White growers and producer of these grapes and lettuce and wine are -- or were -- involved in a dispute with some non-White labor groups. One just knows intuitively that in any conflict between Whites and non-Whites, White liberals will gravitate toward the non-White side. Even when the fight is between two labor unions, in this case the Teamsters and Cesar Chaves'  Chicanos, one knows the White liberals will be on the Chicano side.

As another example, one continually runs across the same jargon in nearly all these publication, queer or non-queer: the compulsive use of such words as chairperson instead of chairman, the breathlessly respectful references to the so-called “third world,” and so on.

But, more than anything concrete or specific that one can point to, this material all smells alike. I suppose that a connoisseur can distinguish something subtly different in the aroma of queer publication, but anyone call smell the same general stink that comes form everything written by White liberals, queer or not. It is the stink of decay, the stink of death.

I used to have a theory about the relationship between liberalism and homosexuality. It was based essentially on the non-masculine character of liberalism. That’s a hard concept to put your finger on, and I’m not really going to try to explain it tonight, except perhaps with a couple of examples.

National Socialism is a masculine “ism.” Fascism is a masculine “ism.” there is a boldness, a forthrightness, an assertiveness about them. And I think it’s fair to say that even communism should be regarded as a masculine “ism.” at least, in its Stalinist variety. There’s certainly nothing effeminate about Stalinism, regardless of how much we hate it.

And please note the distinction between the term “effeminate” -- which I mean as essentially the negation of “masculine” -- and the term “feminine,” which is complement of “masculine.” Masculinity and femininity are both healthy, though certainly different, characteristics. Effeminacy, on the other hand, is a profoundly unhealthy characteristic. And liberalism is an essentially effeminate “ism.” And I mean, specifically, White liberalism. Jewish liberalism is an entirely different thing. Actually there is no such animal.

************************

[A]lthough the great majority of queers are liberals, 

a great many liberals are not queers.  

************************

As I said, I used to have this theory, but it has a couple of weaknesses. For one thing, it became apparent that, although the great majority of queers are liberals, a great many liberals are not queers. One can almost, in fact, divide White liberals into two neat groups: the members of one group, whether queers or not, display in their personal behavior the essentially unmanly attitude toward life which is a fundamental characteristic of liberalism, while the members of the other group tend instead toward a hard-nosed, aggressive, non-effeminate posture.

Those in the first group are the hand-wringers, the bleeding hearts. They are the ones always babbling about “love,” the ones Jimmy Carter was able to con with his big smile and his platitudes during the recent election campaign. They are the mush-headed liberals, the saps, the ones who are perpetually participating in so-called “workshops” and “rap sessions” and “encounter groups” and “sensitivity seminars.” They wear their neurotic guilt and their self-hatred on their sleeves. It’s almost as if each of them has a sign on his back saying, “I’m White. Please kick me.” those are the ones who fit my theory.

But there are also plenty who don’t. They’re the ones who’ll kick back if you kick them--provided you’re White, of course. There’s nothing mush-headed about them, nothing fuzzy about their thinking. They know how to get the job done. And that job is the destruction of America, the destruction of Western civilization, the destruction of the White race.

They worked to bring about the pardoning of draft-dodgers, and now they are working for the pardoning of military deserters too. They have re-written the public-school textbooks, so that they’re now full of Black leaders of the American Revolution, Black cowboys who won the West, and long, tear-jerking eulogies about St. Martin Luther King, how much we all owe him, and how we ought to hate ourselves because a White man finally got fed up with him and shot him. And they’re scheming now about how they can cancel vital defense-oriented research programs and prevent the development of new weapons for our armed forces.

Every important liberal project is a destructive project -- in fact, a self-destructive project. And that gives us, I believe, the clue to the relationship between homosexuality and liberalism. Forget, for at moment, about the sexual aspect of homosexuality and regard it as simply a self-destructive aberration. It is hard to imagine anyone more self-destructive, anyone more obsessed with self-contempt that a homosexual.

So, now if we take an overall view of liberals, we can see this one, outstanding characteristic which they all share, whether the soft-headed or the hard-headed variety: they have all rebelled against their own nature, against their natural role in the world. Some have rejected their natural sexuality; they are the queers. All have rejected their racial role as the natural masters of this earth. For some this racial rejection is turned against themselves personally; they are the soft-heads, the guilt-ridden hand-wringers. Others, the hard-heads, direct their hostility outward, against Western political and social institutions, and against cultural norms, against White rule or White dominance or the maintenance of White racial quality.

And what a strange thing this liberalism is! There are so many questions we can ask: Is it some sort of perverse reaction to the egoism and materialism which rule our thinking today, and to which we also are opposed?

I don’t think so. Liberals hate what they are, their race, their traditions -- but self-denial, that is, asceticism of a Spartan life-style, a rejection of materialism, certainly doesn’t seem to be characteristic of many of then. They seem to be about as interested in their own bank accounts as everyone else is.

Then one notes the striking liberalism of all the Christian churches in recent decades, and one may be inclined to jump to the conclusion that liberalism is Christianity run wild, a sort of compulsion to carry out the program of the Sermon on the Mount: “The scum shall inherit the earth.” But the fact is that, in addition to the Christian liberals, there are many White liberals who belong to no church and profess no Christianity.

Perhaps, then, liberalism is some sort of built-in self-destruct mechanism activated by our unnatural lifestyle ever since the Industrial Revolution--a natural analogue to the instinct which makes lemming commit mass suicide when their population density becomes too high. Well, the fact is that, although I have puzzled over liberalism and its cause for years, I still cannot claim to understand it. It is just too abnormal, to perverse. Nevertheless, I am certain that our society can be cured of this disease and that , once cured, a relapse can be prevented.

It may be, of course, that the disease has already progressed so far that only radical surgery can bring about a cure. I’m rather afraid that’s the case--that many of the carriers of liberalism will have to be treated with extreme prejudice, as they say in the CIA.

But the more important question is how to prevent liberalism form recurring, or, if it does recur in isolated individuals, how to prevent it form spreading. And to that we do have an answer. All we have to do is look at the way it has spread in the past.

You know, most of the people today who profess liberal doctrines are not really liberals. They do not hate themselves or their race. They are not really salivating in anticipation of the Whites in Rhodesia being butchered and raped by Black terrorists, even if they do pay lip service to the Blacks. They aren’t obsessed by a desire to pull down Western civilization and submerge themselves and their children in a rising tide of colored sub humanity. In fact, they seldom, if ever, even think about these things.

They just want to be fashionable. They just want to have the right opinions. They want to talk and behave the way their TV tells them to, the way the smart set they see on TV talks and behaves. If their TV has succeeded in instilling any feeling of guilt in them, it’s a fairly superficial sort of guilt which will evaporate soon enough, after the news and entertainment media are in different hands.
But, despite the fact that real liberals are only a minority of the population, liberalism his spread, and it does have our country and, in fact, our whole race -- at least, in the West -- in a death grip today. And the reason is that there has been no significant opposition to it--certainly not in the last 32 years.

What more-or-less organized forces have opposed the spread of liberalism? Well, the conservatives, for one. Fifty years ago they were much better organized than today. But their strategy was strictly defensive, a hold-the-line strategy. And their philosophy was defensive too: defend the American way of life, defend the Constitution, defend our traditions and customs.

The Gentile business community was also an anti-liberal force -- that is, until the businessmen were convinced it would be more profitable for them to switch than fight.

And the great masses of people didn’t really resist actively at all. Their resistance was only the passive resistance of inertia, the same sort of resistance they put up for a while to everything new or different. Now they are ready to defend liberal institutions and ideas with the same mindless, half-hearted enthusiasm with which they defended the older institutions and ideas.

Liberalism triumphed because those who opposed it -- and those who might have opposed it -- were spiritually empty. They had no strong, vital, positive spiritual basis for their lives -- just a lot of mostly Oriental claptrap. And so the spiritual disease of liberalism really fastened itself on a sort of spiritual corpse -- which is what our society was as liberalism began taking over, and still is. Except that today it is on the brink of becoming a physical corpse as well.

And so now we have a government dedicated to deserters and draft-dodgers here at home; to the destruction of the White people of southern Africa: to the further destabilization of our economy; and to continued decadence and degeneracy of every sort: cultural, political, spiritual.

As I’ve already indicated, I’m afraid the cure for the liberal disease is going to involve some painful surgery. But avoiding its recurrence is simply a matter of nerve again becoming a spiritual corpse, because liberalism is the sort of disease which, like anaerobic bacteria, can grow only in a vacuum.

Now, everything I’ve said up to this point may seem like a negative prologue to what follows. It may seem like the establishment of a negative base for our Truth, our program, our philosophy, relegating it to simply a means of plugging up a spiritual vacuum, in order to keep liberalism out.

Well, that’s an unfortunate way of looking at it.

But it does seem true that often, if not always, mankind must be forced right to the brink of destruction in order for him to be able to summon up the inner strength to take another giant step upward. So one might even view liberalism as a sort of blessing in disguise -- a terrible and dangerous blessing, indeed! We may not survive it.

************************

[T]he program of the Sermon on the Mount: 

“The scum shall inherit the earth.”

************************

But, really, in a world gone mad a sound mind is much more than merely a defense ageist insanity. And in a spiritually empty world a healthy soul, filled with our Truth, is much more than merely a defense against liberalism. It is the essential prerequisite not only for the continued survival of our race on this earth but also for the reassumption of our ordained mission, which is to be always the pioneers, the vanguard, in the never-ending ascent of the Path of Life, symbolized by our Life Rune.

Our people, our race, has always before been the vanguard of progress: the race which has searched out the secrets of life, peered deep into the inner mysteries of the atom and at the same time into the farthest reaches of the Universe, the only race to have set foot on another world--or, what’s more important--the only race to have wanted to.

Yet, all that we have done has been, in a sense, done unconsciously, blindly. We have followed our inner impulse, our inner Urge, intuitively, instinctively, and it has led us upward and upward. But we never really understood the why or the where. We didn’t understand the source of our upward Urge. Often we didn’t even realize it was there. And we didn’t know where it was leading us, or why. We did not understand that we are parts of the Whole, parts of the Creator, and that the Universal Will was acting through us.

And because we didn’t understand these things, or didn’t understand them clearly enough and didn’t make such an understanding the guide for our actions, we made some bad mistakes. We let a type of society grow up around us which is alien to our innermost nature, and we let the disease of liberalism take root in this society and spread until now it is suffocating all of us.

And this alien, diseased society blunted our instinct, confused our instinct, blinded our vision, stifled in the inner voice which had kept us, more or less, on the right track. And so now we are off the track, off the Path of Life although. We have lost our confidence, lost our will. We are no longer sure we want to be the vanguard. Why, that wouldn’t be fair to the other races!

We are in the process now of giving America back to the Indians--literally, of forcing our brothers and sisters in South Africa and Rhodesia to give their countries to the Blacks, and so weakening our military strength here and in Europe that we are virtually inviting another Mongol invasion from the East. And here we sit, night after night, in front of our television sets, while a gaggle of Hollywood Jews pumps more confusion and guilt into us because our ancestors owned Black slaves.

And so I tell you again, if we ever succeed in restoring sanity to this world, if we are to once again be the vanguard, it will only be after we have regained our vision, after we have again learned to heed our inner voice: the voice of our race-soul.

And if we are to maintain a sane world, it will only be because we substitute for the unconscious Urge which guided us in the past the conscious knowledge of out identity and our mission, and then  make this conscious knowledge the basis of our social institutions, our politics, our legal system, our educational system, and our religion, throughout the White world.