Whose Values Shall Rule?

"Whose Values Shall Rule?" is a commentary by Dr. William Pierce which appeared in the National Alliance Bulletin of June, 1980.

Dr. Pierce addressed a meeting of the Ridgewood Group, at the Estonian House in New York City, on May 27. He had been asked to speak especially about his book, The Turner Diaries (for which the nom de plume Andrew Macdonald was used). He spoke for about 45 minutes, first pointing out that the purpose of the book is neither to entertain nor to present a plan for a revolution. The book, he said, is intended solely to serve as a medium for certain ideas, some expressed implicitly and others explicitly. Those ideas deal with human behavior, motivation, and values. The following material has been excerpted from the latter portion of Dr. Pierce’s New York address:

* * *

Whose Values Shall Rule?

by Dr. William Pierce

IT IS IMPORTANT for us to understand that one person is not a Methodist and another a Catholic and a third a Marxist as the result of any rational process -- at least, not in the vast majority of cases, although there are individual exceptions.

That is, one is not a Methodist because one sat down and studied the Methodist doctrine, compared it with other doctrines, and decided that Methodism was what made the most sense. One is a Methodist, generally, because one’s parents and neighbors were -- that is, out of an entirely unreasoning desire to conform, to believe what one perceives that one is expected to believe. John Wesley undoubtedly was an exception to this rule, but very few other Methodists have been.

There has been strong resistance to accepting the implications of this important facet of human behavior. People seem to want to believe that we are all quite rational, when most of us aren’t. For our purposes, the implication of the fact that most people are governed far more by herd instinct than by reason is this: Insofar as the general public is concerned, truth cannot fight its own battles. As long as Norman Lear, the Jewish television producer, has more kilowatts for reaching the public than we do, it will be his view of history and, more important, his view of what is moral rather than ours which will be generally accepted and which will govern the political process.

This means that we can realistically expect our educational efforts to be effective with only a rather small minority of our fellow citizens. We cannot expect to make a partisan for our cause out of the average man or woman who perceives, even unconsciously, that our cause is not popular, no matter how many books or leaflets we may coax that person into reading. We win only two types of people: One is the person who is already alienated to a certain extent from Mr. Lear’s world and does not fully feel himself a part of the herd to which Mr. Lear is preaching with his cleverly designed television sermons. Unfortunately, in many cases people are alienated for reasons which are entirely or partly wrong from our point of view. That is why protest movements and revolutionary movements always pick up lots of defective people. On the other hand, alienation is certain to remain a growth industry, as they say, and one can hope to see many more essentially healthy people becoming alienated from the mainstream in the years ahead.

The second type of person we are able to win with an educational effort at this time is the person who is one of those rare exceptions to the general rule, a person who is strongly motivated by ideas as well as by instinct, and who has already been groping in our direction. Our effect with such a person is primarily to help him clarify his ideas and to lead him more rapidly to their logical conclusions.

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.”

By Way of Deception Thou Shalt Do War

Does Jewish survival strategy demand misdirection, coverups, and colossal lies?

by Dr. William L. Pierce

THE MOTTO of Israel's spy agency, Mossad, is, according to recently defected Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky: "By way of deception thou shalt do war." That motto describes more than the modus operandi of the world's most ruthless and feared organization of professional assassins and espionage agents; it really describes the modus vivendi of an entire race. It is necessary to understand that fact before one can hope to understand fully the role of the Jews in national and world affairs.

The concept of a race eternally at war with the rest of the world is alien to us. It is difficult to believe or even to grasp. When we examine such a concept and begin sifting the evidence it is easy to become confused. On the one hand we have the Old Testament injunctions to the Hebrews from their tribal god, speaking through their prophets, to annihilate every Gentile nation over which they gain power:

And thou shalt consume all the peoples which the Lord thy God shall deliver unto thee; thine eye shall not pity them . . . thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. (Deuteronomy 7:16, 20:16)

Similarly bloodthirsty, explicit injunctions are repeated so often in the Jews' holy books that we can only assume that they are meant to be taken seriously. The historical evidence suggests that in ancient times the Jews did indeed take their religion seriously: they were notorious everywhere and at all times as implacable haters of humanity who in turn were thoroughly despised by every people among whom they lived.

Then on the other hand we have the modern, American Jew in the role of humanitarian, shunning the instruments of war and urging that all citizens, including himself, be disarmed, in order to make the streets of our cities kinder and gentler. Not only do the Jews provide the principal impetus to America's gun-control effort, but they are found in the forefront of every other squishy, do-good movement, from those ostensibly aimed at reducing hostility between the races to those designed to increase tolerance of homosexuals and their practices.

Evolution and Conservative Beliefs

by Dr. William L. Pierce

SINCE THE "Who We Are" series began appearing in NV, the National Office has been receiving complaints from subscribers who are unhappy because the account of man’s origins given there doesn’t jibe with the Jewish account in the Book of Genesis. (ILLUSTRATION: Charles Darwin)

Some readers have sent curt notes, such as, "You evidently don’t believe in the Bible. Don’t you know that evolution is the work of Satan? Cancel my subscription immediately!"

Others have been more patient, explaining either that (a) the first White people were placed on earth via flying saucer somewhere around 7,000 years ago, or that (b) the Creation occurred as described in Genesis, but Adam and Eve were Whites, not Jews, and that the people of the Old Testament eventually migrated to northern Europe and were the ancestors of the European race.

Complaints were definitely in the minority, with most readers indicating an approval of the race-history article, but there was no intention of offending any of our readers’ religious sensibilities with the “Who We Are” series. On the other hand, the Alliance never hesitates to print the truth — even when the truth conflicts with cherished myths. The racial history and prehistory in “Who We Are” are in accord with the presently known facts, whereas the account in the Old Testament and subsequent migrations form Eden to Scandinavia are not.

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.

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.”

What Are They Doing to Our World?

Environmental quality, resources threatened by failing economy

by Dr. William L. Pierce

DURING 1981 the real spendable earnings of the average American wage earner fell another 3.3 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Washington announced on January 22. Of all the economic statistics monitored by the government — consumer price index, average hourly wages, etc. — the real spendable earnings figure is the one which is tied most directly to the average standard of living. It is the amount of real money (i.e., money adjusted for inflation) a wage earner has left to spend after taxes. (ILLUSTRATION: A satellite image of the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" that has expanded to twice the size of the continental United States. It is mostly made up plastic, the inevitable consequence of growing populations and unchecked mass production. This waste, what is left over from largely needless items used by an increasingly degenerate and low quality population, is thrown away with no sense of responsibility for the consequences.)

When we consider non-economic factors, however, we must anticipate a much worse decline in the American living standard than indicated by the falling figure for real spendable earnings.

The crime rate is an example of a non-economic factor which has a strong effect on the standard of living — or quality of life — of the average American. Each year the average U.S. citizen’s chances of being murdered, raped, robbed, or burgled increase. That costs everyone money, whether he is a crime victim or not, in higher taxes for police protection and in higher insurance rates. The non-monetary costs, though, are far higher, as fear of crime increasingly hedges in the average American’s life and restricts his activities.

Disease is another example. Until quite recently, the United States could boast one of the lowest disease rates in the world, with the rate for most infectious diseases continuing to fall each year. Many dread afflictions common in other parts of the world had been virtually eradicated here. This was one of the benefits of an enormous investment over the years in sanitation, inoculation drives, and other public health programs.

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.”

Dr. Pierce Reviews Robert Ardrey's Trilogy

Ardrey Books Pack Ideological Punch

by Dr. William L. Pierce

African Genesis, Robert Ardrey (pictured), 380 pages, softback.
The Territorial Imperative, Robert Ardrey, 390 pages, softback.
The Social Contract, Robert Ardrey, 405 pages, softback.

ROBERT ARDREY’S TRILOGY can without exaggeration be described as the most important piece of popular writing of the last few decades. These books pose such a deadly threat to the reigning orthodoxy that it is almost incredible that they have not only gone through dozens of printings by major publishers during the past 13 years, but that for a while they were actually sold openly in paperback editions at newsstands all over the country.

All three of Ardrey’s books deal with the same basic subject, although each emphasizes different aspects. That subject is animal behavior, studied for the sake of the light it throws on human nature.

Although Ardrey is extraordinarily well-informed on his chosen topic, he is not a scientist himself; prior to African Genesis he was a professional playwright. All the scientific results he reports are the work of others; Ardrey’s great contribution is his enormously effective popularization of research which otherwise might have remained accessible only to scholars.

Beyond this, Ardrey has dared to draw certain profoundly important implications about human nature from the animal studies he has reported.

In African Genesis, the first book of his trilogy, Ardrey presents a convincing case for the animal origins of man’s instinctual drives for territory and dominance. He describes the evidence which indicates man’s descent from a weapon-using, carnivorous predator, Australopithecus africanus, and he relates this to human aggression and man’s instinctive attachment to offensive weapons.

In The Territorial Imperative he greatly expands his thesis of the animal origins of human territoriality.

The Social Contract focuses on certain aspects of group evolution which have important implications for understanding human social behavior.

Ardrey’s books strike a heavy blow at the humanistic basis of neo-liberalism, i.e., at the doctrine of man as the center of the universe, occupying a special and separate position in Nature, independent of the laws governing the rest of God’s creatures.

The liberal has invented a special category, a mental box, called humanity, and anything that is allowed inside acquires thereby an exalted status. It is bestowed with “human dignity.” It is no longer a part of Nature, and a great gulf separates it from all other animate beings.

The liberal has used certain pseudo-scientific arguments to assure himself that this gulf is bottomless: only man, and no other creatures, can use or make tools, the liberal has falsely asserted. Only man, and no other creatures, can use language for communication. Only man, and no other creatures, can reason.

Viewed in the perspective of this practically infinite height of man above other creatures, the difference in human quality, in worth, between a philosopher-king and a slobbering cretin seems small in comparison.

A Newton, a Shakespeare, a Beethoven is, from this viewpoint, essentially on a level with any African Negro. The one might be a trifle smarter than the other, but what is that in the light of the fact that they both have “human dignity”? Thus, the liberals’ obstinate belief in the essential equality of all men.

Now Ardrey has come along and filled up the gulf between man and the rest of Nature. Now we can see man, not as a separate being high on a plateau above other beings, but as a part of Nature’s continuum.

Once we have recognized this continuum, and discarded the notion of a huge quantum difference between man and non-man, the scales fall from our eyes and we can see that the various races of man occupy separate levels in Nature’s hierarchy, just as do the various subhuman species. This hierarchy extends from the protozoon of the primal slime up through more and more complex non-human life forms, through the lower primates to the manlike apes, from the apes to the more primitive and less-evolved races of man, and finally to the higher human races.

Consequently, the concept of human dignity becomes a relative thing instead of an absolute, while “equality” becomes an absurdity.

Carleton Coon

This is entirely in accord with the evidence assembled by others which establishes the separate evolution of the various human races, with the crossing of the subhuman-human threshold occurring at different times. Carleton Coon presents the evidence in his monumental Origin of Races, for example, that the primitive Australoid and Congoid (Negro) races did not cross this threshold until hundreds of thousands of years after the more highly developed Caucasoid (White) and Mongoloid races.

Ardrey’s books greatly enhance the impact of books like Coon’s by forcefully reminding us just how close are the myriad evolutionary roots in the animal kingdom of man’s instinctive individual and social behavior. They thus bridge the animal-human gap and throw human racial differences into proper perspective. Moreover, they accentuate for us the concept of ongoing evolutionary development.

We can more readily see man, and especially Aryan man, not so much as a final end in himself but more as Nature’s highest achievement so far in an unending development toward higher levels of existence, levels which will eventually surpass man’s present state—provided the White race does not manage to commit suicide first.

Ardrey has not only simplified and made available to the general public the findings of the animal behaviorists and other scientists, but he has done it in a way which goes right around a number of mental roadblocks set up by the equalitarian brainwashers.

William Shockley

Dr. William Shockley can explain his evidence of the genetic basis of Negro mental inferiority until he’s blue in the face, and no matter how simple he makes it the boobs won’t get the picture. They know he’s a “racist.”

They’ve been warned to watch out for him. He’s trying to prove Blacks are inferior, and every right-thinking product of the American educational system knows that couldn’t possibly be.

So, if they don’t curse him and try to shout him down, they smile tolerantly while he preaches his “racism,” thus showing that they ‘re liberal enough to let even a crackpot have freedom of speech. But their minds remain closed as tight as a clam. Heresy shall not prevail!

But a nice, liberal boy like Ardrey has no such problems. Promoting “racism”? Why, nothing could be farther from his intentions! He abhors racists.

He circulates easily in the company of Jews, Blacks, homosexuals, communists, and the degenerates of the New York “art” world. This is implicit in all three of his books. He even mentions it explicitly in a couple of places.

And so, while the mind-molders of media, church, and school zealously guard the front door of ideological orthodoxy, guns at the ready and wary eyes peering through chinks in the shutters, Ardrey calmly sails in the back door and mows them all down.

A large part of the effectiveness of his work lies in the fact that he has not really told his readers where all the things he is teaching them are leading. He has not explicitly drawn the ultimate conclusions. He has simply started the reader on the right path and depended on Nature to take its course.

The only reason so many have been willing to start out on Ardrey’s path is that they have not been told where it ends. If they had, they couldn’t be dragged onto it.

The way Ardrey has done it, it all seems so harmless. He is a charming writer, his subject is one of great popular interest, and it is easy to set out for a nice, Sunday stroll with him, learning a bit about the birds and the bees and why they behave the way they do.

When the stroll is over, the entire foundation of the neoliberal worldview has been expertly undermined. It only waits a spark set to the powder Ardrey has packed in there to blow the entire liberal ideology to dust.

For many readers, of course, the spark of understanding never comes. But for enough others it does so that Ardrey’s three books are unsurpassed in their effectiveness at countering the lunatic propaganda which has pushed the White race so close to the brink of oblivion.

* * *

From Attack! No. 28, 1974

transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom. Source: http://nationalvanguard.org/2014/01/ardrey-books-pack-ideological-punch/

The Destruction of the Academy

From National Vanguard Magazine Issue No. 112, January-February 1992:

The debate over the enforcement of Political Correctness at American colleges and universities has been raging in the print media long enough that everyone from the party-loving frathouse jock to the most uncool computer nerd on campus has been made at least dimly aware that he must be careful what he says when talking about anything even remotely racial or sexual in nature.

One must never use the word "girl" in referring to any female over 10 years of age or the word "boy" in referring to a Black male of any age. (And one must not use the word "Black" either, which is considered by the most Politically Correct thinkers to be almost as offensive as "Negro," "darky," or "nigger"; the only acceptable designation now is "African American.")

Homosexuals must never be referred to as "queers," "lesbos," "dykes," "fruits," "faggots," "fairies," or anything else but "gays" (except when the speaker is himself or herself of the sodomite persuasion: "queer" is now in vogue as a self-descriptive term among the pervert avant garde).

If one really wants to be on the safe side, he also should use the term "Politically Correct" (or its abbreviation, "PC") as sparingly as possible -- and certainly never with a smile on his face or a hint of derision in his voice -- lest he indicate that he is one of those benighted souls whom the Red Guardist cadres of Political Correctness have been charged with re-educating. The PC position is that there is now and never has been a program to enforce Political Correctness, and that the term itself was invented by bigots and reactionaries to stigmatize progressive, right-thinking folks.

Does that sound a bit Orwellian? Alas, Orwell himself would be dumbfounded by the present state of affairs on our campuses. At the University of Connecticut students may be expelled for "conspicuous exclusion [of a female, non-White, or homosexual student] from conversation" or for "inappropriately directed laughter"; i.e., laughter at a "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic" joke or at or about a woman or a member of a protected minority group in a way which might cause embarrassment or injured feelings. Although the University of Connecticut conduct code doesn't spell it out, perhaps an inappropriately directed smirk or smile or grin would draw the same penalty as actual laughter, especially for a repeat or unapologetic offender. Remember Orwell's definition of "facecrime"?

At the University of Minnesota six professors recently were charged with sexual harassment. The specifics of the charges included such offenses as not greeting a female student in a friendly enough manner, not teaching in a sensitive enough way, and not having read a certain feminist-favored novel. Eventually the charges were dropped, but only after the professors had been subjected to an ordeal of calumny and intimidation and had gone to great lengths of grovelling and self-abasement to prove themselves innocent of any non-PC tendencies.

At the University of Michigan a student who recited a limerick which speculated jokingly about the homosexuality of a well known athlete was required to attend "gay-sensitivity" training sessions and write a letter of self-criticism for publication in the campus newspaper, under threat of expulsion.

Pages could be filled with similar outrageous -- or amusing or alarming -- anecdotes about the excesses of Political Correctness, but anecdotes alone, no matter how outrageous, cannot give us a full understanding of the disaster which has befallen our universities. Many people have the belief that the enforcement of Political Correctness is simply an effort by well-intentioned university administrators to keep the peace on campuses with increasing numbers of minority students: that the main thrust of their effort has been to restrain uncivil students from using expressions like "kike" or "nigger" or "queer" or "bitch" in referring to their fellow students, thereby giving offense and disrupting the orderly climate of learning. People with this belief generally regard anecdotes of the sort cited here as evidence that in a few cases the efforts to maintain civility have become a little overzealous and have gone a little too far in the direction of restricting speech and other forms of expression. They tend to believe that what we need to do is guard against these excesses and protect the freedoms of students and faculty members to protect their First Amendment rights -- within reasonable limits, of course.

Such people miss the whole point. The drive for Political Correctness is not an overzealous effort to maintain an orderly learning environment at our universities; on the contrary, it is a manifestation of the determination of certain elements inside and outside the universities to insure that the universities not be permitted to perform their traditional function of educating and civilizing a leadership elite for the next generation of Americans.

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

[T]he cant and humbug of Political Correctness are largely confined to the humanities, the "soft" sciences...

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

To be sure, there is among the PC cadres an element motivated primarily by the desire to maintain civility -- or, rather, to avoid giving offense. There always have been those excessively tender-minded souls who flinch at the very thought of saying anything which might hurt someone else's feelings. A cripple must never be referred to matter of factly as a cripple, but as a "physically disadvantaged person'; a man who likes to bugger little boys must under no circumstances be made to feel that his behavior is considered distasteful, unnatural, or contrary to the public interest; a woman must not be reminded that she is in any way different from a man, because that might limit her self-image and lead her to resign herself to motherhood and housewifery instead of pursuing a career as a corporate raider or a mud wrestler; a Black -- oops, an African American -- must not be laughed at or even gently corrected when, full of the absurdities and pufferies of one of the "Black history" courses now being offered at most major universities, he proudly claims that Hannibal and Cleopatra were of his race.

Solicitude for the feelings of others and the avoidance of unnecessary offense always have been characteristics of a gentleman. Women traditionally have gone a bit further and put a high premium on being "nice," even at the expense of truth. Elevating niceness to the ultimate virtue, however, has become possible only in a society which has completely lost its moral bearings. Such niceness is the virtue of emasculated men and women deranged by the ravings of the feminists.

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

Women traditionally have gone a bit further and put a high premium on being "nice," even at the expense of truth.

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

Such niceness is the principal motivation of only a relatively tiny element among the cadres of Political Correctness, however, even though it plays a substantially larger role among the camp followers of the movement. The cadres themselves are recruited mainly from the ranks of the radical feminists, the militant homosexuals, and the racial-minority activists (Blacks, mestizos, Asians, Amerindians, etc.). Their ranks are supplemented by a sprinkling of very sick White males hoping to atone through self-flagellation for their sins of Whiteness and maleness, a few die-hard Marxists who have established a final redoubt in America's universities, and a very significant contingent of Jews -- about whom more later.

The sayings and writings of these cadres, taken as a whole, leave no doubt that their aim goes far beyond protecting the sensibilities of hypersensitive minorities. One of the main thrusts of the Political Correctness movement has been to stamp out what they call "Eurocentrism" in university curricula. Their contention is that traditional curricula, freighted as they are with the writings of "dead White European males" -- "dwems" for short -- are not only irrelevant to the needs of today's university students but are absolutely harmful.

PC Professor Stanley Hauerwas of the Duke University Divinity School complains, "The canon of great literature was created by High Anglican assholes to underwrite their social class."


A Politically Correct committee at Tulane University has prepared a report on "race and gender enrichment" which laments: "It is difficult for us to see and overcome racism and sexism because we are all the progeny of a racist and sexist society."


There is, of course, truth in the assertion of Tulane's Red Guardists about the nature of European society. Pick almost any White male writer of prominence from any era prior to the Second World War, and you can be practically certain that his message will be tainted with racism, sexism, homophobia, paternalism, patriarchism, imperialism, or some other streng verboten "ism."


Open Virgil's great epic from the first century before this era, and the first words we see are, "Of arms and the man I sing..." Not "Of arms and the person": clearly a male-centered, sexist screed.


Fourteen hundred years later Geoffrey Chaucer still was writing in the same vein, of a husband invited to keep tally of debts on the tail of his wife and a "cursed Jew" who slit the throat of a Christian child in an act of ritual murder. 

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

Geoffrey Chaucer [wrote] of ... a "cursed Jew" who slit the throat of a Christian child in an act of ritual murder.

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

A century and a half after Chaucer the great Martin Luther was writing of the Jews: "The sun has never shined on such a bloodthirsty and vindictive people, who cherish the idea of murdering and strangling the Gentiles. No other men under the sun are more greedy than they have been, and always will be, as one can see from their accursed usury. They console themselves that when their Messiah comes he will collect all the gold and silver in the world and divide it among them."


Toward the end of the 16th century William Shakespeare was writing of the Jew Shylock and his demand for a pound of flesh.


In the 18th century we may be tempted to peek into the works of the Founding Fathers -- oops! make that the Founding Parents. Thomas Jefferson wrote that Whites and Blacks were so manifestly different that they could never live as equals in the same society. Benjamin Franklin's often quoted  advice on choosing a mistress would send today's feminists into orbit.


In Germany at the same time (and well into the next century) Wolfgang von Goethe was inspiring his own countrymen with his patriotic writing. We could nail him for sexism, racism, or any of a half-dozen other heresies. For example: "The important thing is that the race remain pure: in this way we become a people! And only in this way will we be able to preserve and enhance the German character."


Moving further into the 19th century, we can look into the works of the better known and better loved English language writers. Take Edgar Allen Poe. One needs go no further than the third paragraph of what is probably his bestknown tale, The Gold Bug: "In these excursions he was usually accompanied by an old Negro, called Jupiter...who could be induced, neither by threats nor by promises, to abandon what he considered his right of attendance upon his young "Massa Will.'"


Or how about Rudyard Kipling? Do we want to know what secrets lurk in the covetous heart of "dark Israel"? We'll find that in his Song of the Fifth River, among other places, Do we want White supremacy? Here is a snippet from his poem A Song of the White Men: "...Well for the world when the White men drink to the dawn of the White Man's day!" Do we want imperialism? We'll find it in nearly everything he wrote.


Charles Darwin, easily the most significant writer of the last century, remarks in his The Descent of Man, in a chapter in which he compares the mental powers of men and other animals: "...how little can the hard worked wife of an Australian savage, who uses very few abstract words, and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness, or reflect on the nature of her own existence." This is only one of a hundred passages of Darwin's which would have the Red Guards of Political Correctness shrieking for his blood.


In Russia, at the same time, Feodor Dostoievsky was condemning the avaricious nature and practices of the Jews, most notably in his Diary of a Writer [see "Dostoievsky on the Jews"]. Nicolai Gogol was writing much the same thing about Russia's Jews in fictional form, in his novel, Taras Bulba.


It is easy enough to hunt out explicitly heretical passages from the writings of virtually every contributor of note in the edifice of Western civilization, from the days of Homer to those of Thomas Stearns Eliot and William Butler Yeats, but it is not really necessary. When racism, sexism, and the other heresies are not explicit, they nearly always are implicit. One does not expect to find many commentaries on the shortcomings of the Negro by European writers when there were no Negroes in Europe, but European society was nonetheless "racist" in every fiber of its being. European men usually loved their women, who usually reciprocated, but their society was as "sexist" by today's Politically Correct feminist standards as it was racist.


A generation ago it was enough to attempt to shield students from the more explicit reminders of these facts: to explain away Luther's and Dostoievsky's denunciations of the Jews as aberrations, to make a few excuses of Poe's depictions of Blacks, to skirt around Kipling's more forceful calls for White pride. Anthologies compiled for classroom use carefully omitted the writings which were too hard to explain away.


This bowdlerizing of European civilization in an attempt to make it palatable to a diverse horde of students and teachers without European roots, as well as to growing numbers of disturbed White men and women whose inability to come to grips with their genders make the traditional "sexism" and "homophobia" of our civilization hateful, was utterly dishonest, and it was bound to fail.


The first postwar generation of White professors and university administrators (i.e., those who began retiring in the 1970s) -- the authors of the policy of bowdlerization -- was characterized by timidity and hypocrisy. Many of them were not happy with the moral compromises they were making, but what were they to do? Some simply didn't have the courage to come right out and say that the bearers of Western civilization had committed a collective act of suicide by engaging in the Second World War: that America and Britain, in particular, had been tricked into fighting against everything on which the cultural ascendency of the West is based, and that now they must either repudiate their role in the war or look forward to the eventual abandonment of their heritage altogether. Had the war not been fought in the name of equality and democracy, and is that not what Political Correctness is all about?


Others had already developed the habit of moral ambiguity, and it was easier to compromise even further than to draw a line and take a stand.


The second postwar generation (i.e, those entering their professions during the quarter-century since about 1965) grew up in the television age and went through puberty under the influence of the Beatles, the Students for a Democratic Society, the Yippies, and the media deification of Martin Luther King; with cities being set to the torch by Black rioters and looters, while the media and the politicians blamed "White racism" for the turmoil; with permissiveness, the denial of individual accountability, the belief that all points of view are equally valid, and protests against every form of authority. The youngest members of this generation were weaned on Sesame Street and sent to racially integrated schools.


They grew up, in other words, in a time of cultural, moral, and racial chaos, and they reached maturity with no clear sense of identity, no firm cultural roots, and no moral bedrock as a basis for their values. They were ready to go with the flow, wherever it might lead: to take their direction from anyone with a loud enough voice.


This moral vacuum provided the perfect opportunity for any interest group which could organize itself on a large enough scale for its voice to be heard. Many groups organized, and the media perversely provided the loudest megaphones for precisely those with the most destructive aims. The feminists, the homosexuals, and the racial minority activists, who in healthier times would be sent scurrying back to their holes, were first tolerated on the campuses and later welcomed with open arms. There they have formed an interest bloc strong enough to swing an increasing amount of weight in setting policy. Despite their diversity they have a common hatred which unites them: a raging, burning hatred for the White, heterosexual, patriarchal society which abhorred and rejected them.


Anyone who thinks that the preceding sentence is an exaggeration has not paid attention to what the PC cadres are saying.


When Black professor Jane Jordan was criticized for teaching her English class at the Stony Brook campus of the State University of New York in Black ghetto dialect instead of standard English, she defended herself thus: "Should we use the language of the killers -- standard English -- in order to make our ideas acceptable to those controlling the killers?"


The more radical feminist professors preach that the only ways in which women can gratify their sexual feelings and retain their self-respect are through lesbianism and masturbation. To yield to sexual attraction for a man is to betray their own gender and consort with "the enemy." Women who date are railed at as "prostitutes." Allison Jagger, a PC professor at the University of Cincinnati and chairperson of the American Philosophical Association's Committee on the Status of Women in Philosophy, teaches her students that the traditional family is a "cornerstone of women's oppression" and should be abolished.


The students and professors who attracted national attention during the last two years with their successful campaign to eliminate the "Eurocentric" character of the humanities curricula at Stanford University weren't merely trying to have a few changes made or a few minority-oriented courses added; their chant was, "Hey, hey, no, no, Western culture's got to go!"


The statements of Politically Correct academics are replete with references to the "oppression" and "exploitation" of women, racial minorities, and homosexuals by heterosexual White males, and the texts which have become required reading for all students at Politically Correct universities are brimming over with resentment at wrongs inflicted and with exhortations for revenge. One should not be surprised, of course, that minority activists long steeped in this literature of resentment should hate those they have been persuaded are their oppressors.


It goes beyond that, though -- as it reaches from the universities down into the high schools and elementary schools. A master plan for multicultural education put forward two years ago by New York State Education Commissioner Leonard Sobol is based on the thesis that "intellectual and educational oppression has characterized the culture and institutions of the European-American world for centuries." The remedy for this intolerable situation, according to Mr. Sobol and his colleagues, is to require that "all curricular materials be prepared on the basis of multicultural contributions" so that non-White children "will have higher self-esteem, while children from European cultures will have a less arrogant perspective."


We may be tempted to laugh when we hear one of Mr. Sobol's race complain about arrogance in others, but it is no laughing matter. The aim of the cadres of Political Correctness is not merely to make Blacks feel good about themselves by convincing them that their ancestors were founders of great civilizations and that the only reason for their own non-achievement is "oppression" by Whites. It is, more urgently, to squelch White racial consciousness and pride. It is to confuse heterosexual White males (and females), to keep them off balance, to make them feel apologetic, even guilty. It is to morally disarm "the killers," to emasculate them, to prepare them to accept annihilation quietly.

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

We may be tempted to laugh when we hear one of Mr. Sobol's race complain about arrogance in others, but it is no laughing matter. 

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

One may think this is too ambitious a program. Certainly, the radical feminists who would like to persuade all other women not to consort with "the enemy" have not made a very large dent in heterosexual activity on our campuses -- although they have sown all too many seeds of discord between men and women which surely will sprout later. And claims about the superiority of ancient Black cultures are generally ignored, even if few have the courage or honesty to refute them.


Furthermore, the cant and humbug of Political Correctness are largely confined to the humanities, the "soft" sciences, and the vast array of postwar "mickey mouse" and vocational curricula which have invaded the campuses. A student whose aim is to become a microbiologist, an electrical engineer, or a computer scientist will be too busy with facts to pay much attention to propaganda.

Nevertheless, the damage done has been enormous, and the threat of even greater damage is ominous. Whites have been confused. They have been put on the defensive. Some of the lies have stuck.

Consider, for example, the reactions of students, faculty members, and university administrators to a simple call for concern about the future for the White race. Members of the National Alliance, an organization whose principal activity is the publication of materials designed to raise White racial consciousness, have distributed on university campuses around the country a large number of stickers bearing the text: "Earth's most endangered species: the White race. Help preserve it." The only other thing on the three-inch by five-inch, fluorescent orange stickers is a request for interested persons to contact the National Alliance for further information, with a mailing address and a telephone number.

One might think that people seeing such a sticker would either be interested in its message, in which case they would note the address and write to the National Alliance, or they would be uninterested and simply ignore it. In fact, however, the stickers have caused a furor whenever they have appeared on a campus. Blacks, Jews, and members of other minority groups have reacted rationally, denouncing the National Alliance and the persons who posted the stickers. After all, the last thing they want is for White Americans to develop the same sort of racial consciousness which gives the minorities their own strength. As they have said many times in their calls for racial solidarity among their own people, "We've got Whitey on the run now; let's keep him running!"

It is the irrational fear of many Whites which provides the real evidence of the damage done by the program of thought control at our colleges and universities.


When stickers appeared on campus of Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales, a Roman Catholic school in Pennsylvania, last spring, the president of the college, Reverend Daniel Gambet, sent a letter to all students and faculty members warning them not to be influenced by what he described as "hate literature." He went on to say, "We believe it is important to publicly and unequivocally condemn this kind of material and the intolerant behavior which produces it."


When the National Alliance stickers were posted on the campus of Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, New York, last fall, faint hearts were set aflutter again, and a group of especially guilt-stricken Whites organized an "anti-racism" meeting on campus, while the administration announced that it had "contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the FBI will investigate the National Alliance."


The same stickers on the campus of William Paterson College in Wayne, New Jersey, provoked education professor Edward Bell to demand that the trustees of the college "do something" to protect Black students on the campus and resulted in breathless newspaper articles and urgent meetings of the college's "bias harassment panel."


When not only stickers but a proposal to form a campus group, a White Students' Union, to implement the message on the stickers appeared on the Minneapolis campus of the University of Minnesota last year, an uproar began that still has not died down. The organizers of campus Jewish groups, Black groups, Asian groups, feminist groups, and homosexual groups are accepted calmly by other students and by the faculty and administration, but the organizer of the White Student Union, mild-mannered, soft-spoken senior Tom David, is a constant center of controversy. His presence on the campus provokes hand-wringing editorials in the student newspaper about "bigotry," disgustingly wimpish letters to the editor by White males eager to confess the guilt of their kind, and rallies aimed at restoring the racial harmony on the campus David supposedly has upset.


In general, the reaction of many young White men and women to the National Alliance's stickers is similar to what one might have expected in 1892 if someone had distributed fliers on campuses promoting free love and illustrating the concept with a photograph of a nude, copulating couple. Sex was the taboo subject then, the subject that decent people didn't talk about and pretended that they didn't think about. Any mention of it released a rush of confused emotions: guilt, fear, embarrassment. Anyone so indiscreet as to challenge the taboo was denounced by many and hated by others. Rational debate was a rarity.

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

Sex was the taboo subject then, the subject that decent people didn't talk about and pretended that they didn't think about... Today the taboo subject is race.

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

Today the taboo subject is race: rather, any deviation from the Politically Correct position on race. Just as the parents, teachers, preachers of a century ago managed to persuade young people, at a subconscious level, that their natural sexual feelings were somehow unclean, perhaps even sinful, and therefore to be kept repressed, the increasing harangue about "White racism" and the supposed White male repression, exploitation, and general mistreatment of practically everyone else has had its effect. Even the suggestion that the White race ought to concern itself with its survival releases a flood of confused and disturbing feelings. No one can say quite why such a suggestion is "hate" or "bigotry," simply because, as was the case with sex a century ago, debate has been stifled and the persuasion has taken place largely at a subconscious level.

Which is not to say that some of the lies have not come to the surface; after White students have been put on the defensive subconsciously, they are inclined not to stick their necks out by debating the propositions that "diversity" is to be valued above homogeneity, that there are no significant racial differences in ability or character, and that men and women are essentially interchangeable units and should have the same roles in society.

This is grievous damage indeed. Those students also are damaged, however, who for whatever reason -- perhaps stronger character or less susceptibility to group pressure -- remain free of any feeling of guilt or of obligation to tolerate every minority impudence. They may still be able to learn their chemistry or their mathematics as well as ever, but to the extent that the insanity of multiculturalism has corrupted the teaching of history, of literature, of philosophy, of anthropology, and of other subjects they are robbed of their education and therefore of their culture, their civilization, and their identity. Universities cease to function in their natural role as formative institutions for the intellectual elite and become mere vocational training centers. And that was the way it was planned.

The reaction which has developed on our campuses to the crusade for Political Correctness is in some ways more dangerous than the sickness it purports to be attempting to cure. We can perceive the truth of this statement if we look closely at the position taken by the reaction -- and at the leading personalities in the reaction.

At Yale University, for example, the recognized leader of those holding the line against the zanier excesses of the Red Guards is the dean of the undergraduate arts and sciences students, Donald Kagan. He is widely hailed as a force for reason and moderation in Academia, because he has refused to be stampeded into going along with those who insist that homosexuals be elevated to a privileged status and Eurocentrism be replaced with Afrocentrism. He has even gone so far as to refuse to appoint a cadre of openly homosexual senior counselors for incoming freshmen, as Yale's organized perverts have demanded; and when Black students erected unsightly shanties on the campus as a protest against South African apartheid Kagan reminded them that the structures were in violation of university rules.

Kagan is a Jew. So is student Jonathan Adler, the editor of the Yale Free Press, generally considered a conservative and politically incorrect periodical. Dinesh D'Souza, the author of one of the most scholarly critiques of the excesses of Political Correctness, Illiberal Education, is an Indian. Not every publicist with a politically incorrect voice is non-White, but non-Whiteness helps. Most White, male academics who still retain their freedom of thought are afraid to exercise their freedom of speech, lest they be condemned as "racists," "anti-Semites," or what have you.

Among the PC cadres themselves Blacks are at least as noticeable as the Jews, but not as influential; the Black cadres, with their often ludicrous ideas about history and their bizarre attempts to assert an African identity, provide the comic relief and the muscle for the movement, while the Jews -- assisted, of course, by the feminists, sodomites, etc. -- provide the brains.

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

Political Correctness a Jewish phenomenon . . . in the same sense as Marxism is Jewish.

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

It is not just the disproportionate presence and influence of Jews which justify calling Political Correctness a Jewish phenomenon, however. It is Jewish in the same sense as Marxism is Jewish: that is, because the propaganda of human equality and of cosmopolitanism which validates it is Jewish in origin, because the principal off-campus support for the movement has come from the Jew-controlled entertainment and news media -- and because the foundations for it were laid in a horrendously cruel and bloody war fought to serve Jewish interests and advance Jewish sociopolitical theories.

The reaction studiously avoids mentioning any of this, of course, and it avoids attacking Political Correctness at its roots. In fact, it accepts the same axioms that its PC opponents do: namely, the axiom of equality and the axiom of cosmopolitanism. It believes in "diversity" and multi-culturalism -- in moderation, of course. In his 1991 address to Yale's freshmen Kagan gloated over the fact that the university, once virtually all White, had been transformed into a mirror of America's multiracial society. He said that Yale's new "diversity is a source of strength and it should be a source of pride as well." His restrained warnings not to scrap Western culture entirely just because it was built by dead, White, European males are usually accompanied by praise for the increasing attention being paid to Black studies and other PC areas of interest. He supports Yale's program of compulsory roommate assignments for freshmen, in which an effort is made to mix races as much as possible in the dormitories, and he says that he is happy that upperclassmen are not resegregating themselves to any large degree.

The same general pattern is to be found at most of America's universities. On one side are the nutcase weirdos, the hate-crazed dykes and fags, the dashiki-clad Blacks nursing their resentments, the Red Guardists raging incoherently at the White, male, heterosexual world; and on the other side are the cooler heads counseling a slower but surer strategy for destroying the White world. Most of the former are too silly to be taken seriously; the latter, however, by appearing to champion the cause of sanity and moderation manage to preempt most of the opposition to the lethal principles the former represent while embodying those same principles themselves.

It really is a tragedy. America once had some truly great universities. They not only turned out scholars; they also imbued those who passed through them with a certain sense of identity, with a feeling for the race's past and a sense of responsibility for its future. They helped with the business of sorting out values and fixing priorities.

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

[O]ne cannot put a sense of honor back into academics who compromised theirs away. And without honor one cannot expect truth to prevail.

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

Greatness cannot exist with egalitarianism, however. Most of America's universities are beyond redemption today. One can put down the loonies and chase the freaks and aliens off the campuses, but one cannot put a sense of honor back into academics who compromised theirs away. And without honor one cannot expect truth to prevail.

The universities will, however, be a battleground through the coming years, and the combatants will not be just the PC cadres and the reactionaries now pretending to hold them in check; there also will be those who understand the fundamentals and fight on that basis. Perhaps one day we all will be grateful to the minions of Political Correctness for having drawn for us in such bold and clear strokes the real meaning of egalitarianism and thereby give us the impetus to do what is necessary to deal with this disease of the soul.