Where Are Our Heroes?

From ATTACK! tabloid, Issue No. 55, 1977:


The Men of the Alamo
by Dr. William L. Pierce

AS THE DUSK GATHERED in the early evening of March 5, 1836, William Travis mustered the 183 men under his command on the dusty plaza of the Alamo, a fortress-like former Spanish mission. As the assembled Texans listened intently, the lanky officer outlined the situation. He made explicit what everyone already knew: there was little hope of surviving the onslaught of the 4,000-strong Mexican army which surrounded the fortress. They could hope for no further relief.

Then he did something strange. As the men watched curiously, Travis drew his sword and traced a line in the dust along the front of the first rank. Now he offered the men a choice. If there was anyone among them who had been deceived as to the gravity of their circumstances – if there was anyone who wanted to make a break for it – they might leave without infringing their honor. But let those who would stand and die with Travis cross the line.

Micajah Autry, an itinerant scholar and poet from Tennessee, was first across the line. Davey Crockett, the legendary rifleman, quickly followed, and then James Bonham, the dashing horseman from South Carolina. As his wife Susannah watched from the shadows of the old mission’s wall, Almeron Dickinson, a blacksmith from Gonzalez turned artilleryman, crossed the line. The rest followed in a rush, whooping defiance of Mexican General Santa Anna and his horde.

Davy Crockett's Last Stand at the Alamo -
This detail of that painting was the cover
 for National Vanguard magazine #103,
 Jan-Feb, 1985    

Only two men remained behind the line. One of them, Jim Bowie, the storied knife-fighter, lay on a cot, desperately ill. He begged to be carried across, and two of his comrades quickly hefted him over the line.

Now only Moses (Louis) Rose, a Jewish mercenary from France, hung back. Bowie, who had earlier befriended Rose, called out weakly, “You seem not to be willing to die with us, Rose!”

Rose answered curtly, “No, I am not prepared to die, and I shall not do so if I can avoid it.” With that, he vaulted over the wall, stealthily made his way past the Mexican pickets, and vanished into the night. Some years later, he died uneventfully.

The next day the men of the Alamo won immortality.

Travis’s drawing of the line was only the most dramatic episode in the Alamo saga. At one time the details of the siege and fall of the Texas stronghold were well known to every White American. Even today the facade of the Alamo chapel (all that remains of the old mission) is a familiar picture. Movies and television shows, dating from an era in which the masters of Hollywood found a feigned patriotism expedient as well as profitable, have acquainted many with the externals of the story. The most significant aspects of the Texans’ gallant last stand, however, have been for a long time carefully veiled. They deserve to become once again the common possession of our people, and the bravery of the men of the Alamo deserves commemoration as long as our race endures.

The Texas Revolution, of which the battle of the Alamo was the most stirring event, was the inevitable result of the confrontation of two vastly different peoples. The immigrants from the United States whom Mexico had reluctantly allowed to settle Texas, which was then a part of Mexico, were overwhelmingly of northern European stock. The Texas historian T. R. Fehrenbach has described them as a “tall, very Caucasoid race, more raw-boned than wiry. They filled the ridges and valleys with fair-skinned people and blue-eyed children.”

Most of them had come from the southern and border states. There the settlers’ race-feeling, already strong, had been honed to a sharp edge in the murderous and incessant Indian wars and by their association with Black slaves, either as owners or as competitors in the labor market. These White men and women of Texas felt themselves to be the vanguard of their race, and they meant to wring their destiny, manifest or otherwise, from the plains and mountains which stretched across the remainder of the continent.

The Mexicans, who were mostly of Indian or mixed (mestizo) blood, regarded these “Anglo-Saxon barbarians” with increasing fear and resentment. The government had only allowed Texas to be settled from the United States after it had become clear that the native Mexicans from the south could not be induced to move to the sparsely settled northern province. As American farmers and ranchers poured into Texas after 1822, they quickly came to outnumber the small Mexican population. By 1830 the Mexican government had forbidden any further immigration from the growing giant to the north.

When Santa Anna converted his presidency into a dictatorship and abolished the constitution, which had provided for a federated rather than a centralized Mexican state, the Texans rose up. They quickly overwhelmed the smaller Mexican garrisons throughout the state and then seized the capital, San Antonio de Bexar, by storm, overpowering a large force commanded by Santa Anna’s brother-in-law, General Cos, in December 1835.

Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna was Mexico’s leading general as well as her most adroit politician. He had emerged as a national hero after repelling a Spanish attempt to reconquer Mexico at Vera Cruz in 1829. Monumentally vain and extravagant, the self-styled “Napoleon of the West” was nevertheless a dynamic organizer as well as a charismatic leader. He quickly assembled and drilled an army of 6,000 Mexican regulars, trained and led in accordance with the latest continental European principles. With this elite force he marched north from Saltillo, Mexico, at the end of January 1836, determined to crush the upstart American rebels and then settle the problem once and for all by a program of summary executions and mass deportations.

The reports which Santa Anna’s numerous sympathizers among San Antonio’s Mexican population brought him concerning the state of the city’s White garrison must have heightened the contempt the Mexican general felt for the abilities of the American fighting men. The force which had seized San Antonio the previous December had dwindled to fewer than a hundred men in January. Only a few dozen reinforcements augmented the detachment as the Mexicans made their way north. There was bad blood between the two top ranking Texans, with both Jim Bowie and William Barret Travis attempting to exercise command.

The Texans holding San Antonio had their strengths as well as their weaknesses, as Santa Anna and his men were to discover. The fighting spirit of those who remained was high. Most of them were volunteers from outside Texas whose elan, if anything, surpassed that of their Texas brethren.

At the defense, the American frontiersmen were among the most effective soldiers in the world. They fired their long Kentucky rifles with deadly accuracy at ranges up to 200 yards. At close quarters they were devastating with knife and tomahawk. A tendency toward indiscipline was counterbalanced by a self-reliance and a self-sufficiency not to be found among the Mexicans.

Nevertheless, Santa Anna nearly caught the Texans napping as he advanced to San Antonio on February 23. Travis, the nominal commander by virtue of his status as the senior regular officer, hadn’t thought the Mexicans capable of crossing the several hundred miles of arid plains between Saltillo and San Antonio so rapidly. Santa Anna, however, had driven his troops mercilessly, and as his advance guard swept into the city the Texans barely had time to retire to the shelter of the Alamo.

The Alamo had been built as a mission to the Indians by the Franciscan order in 1718, but it had been abandoned in 1793. Although it derived its name from a company of soldiers from the Mexican town of Alamo de Parras who had subsequently been stationed there, it was not well suited for defense, especially by so small a force as Travis commanded.

The compound consisted of a large, rectangular plaza, adjoined on the east by a smaller plaza and the old mission chapel. The larger plaza was enclosed by a thick wall twelve feet high. Inside and adjacent to the wall were the former mission workshops and living quarters, which served the garrison as barracks, storerooms, and offices. The chapel, at the southeast corner of the mission, was filled with rubble; its roof had fallen in years before.

Green Jameson, a lawyer from Kentucky who was the Texans’ chief engineer, had worked hard to strengthen the Alamo’s weak spots. A breach in the north wall had been plugged by stones and timber. On the southeast, where there was a dangerous gap between the wall and the chapel, a palisade of logs surrounded a hastily constructed earthwork.

Now the Texans intensified their efforts. A well was dug to supplement the water from a stream flowing close outside the walls. Gun emplacements were readied in the ruins of the chapel. Davey Crockett and his handful of fellow Tennesseans, who had arrived in San Antonio only two weeks before, were assigned the critical palisade on the southeast.

As the men hauled the Alamo’s fourteen guns into position on the walls, they caught sight of Santa Anna’s flag fluttering from the bell tower of the San Fernando Cathedral on the outskirts of the city, a few hundred yards away. It was blood red, and it signified no quarter.

A short while later, the lookouts spotted another flag. This one was white. Evidently Santa Anna wanted to talk. Travis, who knew of Santa Anna’s proclaimed intent to “exterminate every White man within its (Texas’s) limits,” ordered his gunners to reply with a blast of cannon fire.

That night Jim Bowie collapsed. Bowie, whose reputation as an intrepid Indian fighter and the master of the knife which bore his name was known across the frontier, had been regarded by the volunteers from outside Texas as the garrison’s rightful commander. He had not discouraged this opinion, for he had been a leader all his life and he regarded the younger Travis as inexperienced. The friction between the two, and Bowie’s greater popularity among the men, had almost led Travis to resign.

Now, with Bowie desperately ill, command rested solely in Travis’s hands. At 28, he had already established himself as a champion of White Texans’ rights. Many of his more complacent fellow Texans had regarded him as an irresponsible firebrand until events upheld his audacity. In 1832 he had been imprisoned in the coastal town of Anahuac for challenging the authority of Colonel John Bradburn, and autocratic American in the Mexican service who was widely regarded as a race traitor by White Texans. Then in 1835 Travis returned to Anahuac with a group of comrades and seized the town, helping to spark the current secession. At the Alamo he would capitalize on his opportunity for greatness.

During the night of February 23 the Mexicans closed the ring around the Alamo, carefully staying nout of range of the defenders’ rifles after the Texas marksmen had claimed several of the less cautious. On the next day, in a dispatch which still stands as a classic expression of American heroism, Travis appealed to “the people of Texas and all Americans in the world” for aid. Recognizing the possibility of insufficient reinforcement, he ended his message, which was smuggled through the Mexican lines that night by a volunteer: “I shall never surrender or retreat. Then I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch . . . If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country – Victory or Death.”

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

I shall never surrender or retreat...Victory or Death! - Col. William Travis

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

The first week of the siege was comparatively uneventful. The Mexicans lobbed cannon balls into the Alamo periodically without inflicting any casualties. The Texans, low on powder and shot, husbanded their ammunition. There was no reply to Travis’s appeal for help.

Then in the early morning darkness of March 1, 32 horsemen burst through the Mexican lines and galloped through the hastily opened gates of the Alamo. The Mexican sentries, caught off guard, didn’t fire a shot. The riders were Texans from Gonzalez, 70 miles east of San Antonio, led by George Kimball, a hatter. Almost all of them had families and were fully aware of the overwhelming odds facing the Alamo, but they rallied all the more enthusiastically to the relief of their countrymen. They were the only reinforcements, save one, the Alamo would receive.

One more American braved the Mexican lines to reach the Alamo. He was James Butler Bonham, a chivalrous young lawyer from a wealthy family in South Carolina and a distant cousin of Travis.

Bonham had been dispatched by Travis on February 27 to persuade the sizeable force at Goliad to march to the aid of the Alamo. The commander at Goliad was Colonel James Fannin, an indecisive and unstable officer. When it became clear to Bonham that Fannin intended to stay in Goliad, he prepared to return to the Alamo.

When Fannin implored him not to throw his life away, Bonham spat in the dust and snarled that Travis deserved to know the answer to his appeals. After stopping at Gonzalez and learning of the departure of the local men, he rode westward to glory, passing through the Mexican lines unscathed on March 3.

The drama was drawing to its conclusion. As Travis drew the line March 5, Santa Anna, buoyed by reinforcements from the south, was planning his assault on the Texans’ fortress. Shortly before daybreak the next morning, March 6, 1836, the Texans awakened to the alarms of their sentries and the rhythmic tramp of thousands of marching feet. Four columns were heading for the Alamo: two groups marching toward the north wall of the plaza, a third striking from the east, the fourth detachment moving from the south against Davey Crockett’s palisade. Over the cheers of the attacking Mexicans, the Texans could heard the regimental band blaring out the menacing strains of the “Deguello,” a march from Spain’s Moorish past, the name derived from a word for throat-cutting.

Even in the dim light of the pre-dawn the Texans could make out the gaudy braid and silver the Mexican officers sported on their uniforms. Once again the Kentucky rifle proved its mettle, as the defenders poured a devastating fire into the ranks of the advancing Mexicans. Officers and men fell by the scores, then the hundreds. Twice the Mexicans reeled back, until, reinforced by Santa Anna’s reserve, and at a terrible cost, the two northern columns reached the base of the Alamo wall. Now, deprived of the advantage the much greater range of their rifles had given them and hampered by the absence of ramparts on the thick walls, the Texans began to fall. The Mexicans scrambled up their scaling ladders, not without heavy losses, and poured over the wall.

Travis fell at the north wall, shot through the head. As the Mexicans surged into the plaza, the Texans engaged them hand-to-hand. Towering over the diminutive mestizos, they wielded tomahawks, knives, and fists to murderous effect. A gun crew on the west wall swung their piece around and riddled the Mexicans in the plaza with grapeshot before they, too, were overwhelmed.

As more and more Mexicans swarmed over the walls, the outnumbered Texans fell back into the barracks and storerooms. Only at the expense of numerous casualties were the Mexicans able to kill or dislodge the defenders.

When the Mexicans burst into one small room, they found a defiant Jim Bowie, too weak to rise from his cot, but brandishing a revolver. He shot several of his assailants before he succumbed.

Behind the palisade and in the chapel, Crockett’s and Bonham’s men still held out. The Mexicans overran them after a brief but bitter struggle. Crockett and his Tennessee volunteers lay surrounded by heaps of dead Mexicans.

Major Robert Evans was shot down, torch in hand, as he crawled to blow up the Alamo’s powder magazine. Bonham and Dickinson fell by their guns in the chapel.

For fifteen minutes after the last Texan had been killed the Mexican troops, stunned by the ferocity of the resistance, continued to bayonet and shoot the dead defenders.

Santa Anna hastened to restore order. He allowed Almeron Dickinson’s wife and infant daughter, the only White women of the Alamo, to ride west to Gonzalez, presumably to spread terror with their story. The Mexican tyrant also ceremoniously liberated Travis’s Black slave, Joe, who had been found cowering in a storeroom.

The more than 1,500 Mexican casualties were attended to. The dead were buried under the supervision of San Antonio’s Mexican mayor, Francisco Ruiz, while the wounded were ministered to by the city’s Mexican population. But the Texan dead Santa Anna sought to dishonor by denying them burial. He ordered the bodies of every one of the Alamo’s 183 defenders burned.

And so the great funeral pyre was enveloped in flames, and the fire consumed the men of the Alamo – just as countless times a thousand years before, it had consumed the fallen heroes of whom their ancestors had sung in the longhouses and the great halls of northern Europe. Like all the champions of their race, the Texans treasured honor and courage above life itself. The echoes of their heroism reverberated at San Jacinto six weeks later, when Sam Houston’s men avenged them on Santa Anna, and for a century afterward their memory gave Americans the strength to face hopeless odds resolutely.

Now, as the alien subverters stealthily work their will behind the scenes, few White Americans hearken to the lessons of the Alamo. Throughout the whole American Southwest, the mestizo descendants of Santa Anna’s horde bid to win back what he lost, as the brown flood streams unchecked across our borders.

It is time to renew the pact between the living and the dead: that they shall live on in the memory of their race, and that we, remembering, shall have their example always before us, exhorting us to carry out unflinchingly whatever the future of our race requires.

---

See also:http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6421121071497824942#editor/target=post;postID=4830167430843938899

National Vanguard Magazine is Born

Editorial from National Vanguard Magazine, Issue No. 86, May 1982:

A More Effective Tool

When we began publishing more than 11 years ago, mobs of as many as a quarter-million demonstrators were marching through the streets of Washington chanting, “Ho-Ho-Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong’s gonna win!” The Washington Post, the New York Times, and the three television networks were openly sympathetic to the communist enemy in Vietnam. ROTC facilities had been burned to the ground on a dozen of the nation’s university campuses, and terrorist bombs were going off at a rate of more than one a day in banks, corporate offices, and government buildings.

During one of the larger pro-Viet Cong demonstrations, in which the leaders had promised to “shut down the government,” a mob gathered across the street from our Washington office, and while a greasy, Levantine creature with a megaphone tried to incite his Gentile subordinates into attacking the building, roving groups were overturning parked cars along the street.

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

A greasy, Levantine creature with a megaphone tried to incite his Gentile subordinates into attacking [our Washington office] building...

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

It may be understandable that, under such circumstances, we thought that the country was ripe for revolution -- that the time had finally come when the long-suffering White majority might be encouraged to rise up; to storm the lairs of the media masters with fire and iron; to drag the politicians out of their offices and the New York-accented lawyers out of the “Justice” Department and administer summary justice to all of them on the sidewalk; to surround New York City with an impenetrable ring of a million armed vigilantes and burn the whole place to the ground. All that had to be done, we imagined, was to identify the enemy, to explain what was happening and where the country was headed, to point out the danger of inaction -- and then the people would take care of the rest.

So that’s what we did. We put our message on newsprint, under flaming, red headlines. We called it ATTACK! We hawked it on street corners, we talked about it in deliberately provocative TV and newspaper interviews, and we mailed out literally millions of copies of it.

And, of course, we were very naïve. It took us a while to realize that we were not getting through with our message to “the people,” but only to a very tiny minority among them. It took us even longer to understand why: to understand just how far the process of degeneration had already gone, and how much preparatory work would have to be done before there could be a revolution -- more precisely, before there could be a renewal, a rebirth of our people.

Nevertheless, the number of people responding to our message grew, albeit with maddening slowness at times. And we evolved. We dispensed with the red headlines. We changed our name from ATTACK! to NATIONAL VANGUARD. We began concerning ourselves less with the symptoms of what was happening to our world and our people, and more with the fundamental causes. And we found that more and more of the right sort of people were responding: people who still had healthy instincts and who were able to understand everything we were saying.

Now we have made another change. It’s a change in style rather than substance, but we believe that it will be an important change in the long run. We believe that the new image of NATIONAL VANGUARD more accurately corresponds to its essence than did the old image, and that it will help us find even more of the right sort of people.

We will, of course, continue to adhere absolutely to our guiding principle, which is that NATIONAL VANGUARD will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; that it will deal in depth with every issue relevant to our task; and that it will never allow a fear of offending any segment of the public to keep it from saying whatever needs to be said. But from now on we will be more conscious of the fact that, just as a man is often judged by the clothes he wears, the acceptability of truth may depend on the package in which it is presented.

One caution: the somewhat slicker format of the new NATIONAL VANGUARD should mislead no reader into assuming that we feel a more relaxed outlook toward the problems confronting us as a people is now appropriate. Perhaps an advantage of the tabloid format in this regard was its very roughness and the sense of currency and urgency that went along with it. The urgency may not be expressed in headlines quite as large as before, but it is even more strongly felt by the staff here, and that will be seen both in the substance of our writing and in the greater frequency with which the new NATIONAL VANGUARD will be published.

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

NATIONAL VANGUARD will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; it will deal in depth with every issue relevant to our task; and it will never allow a fear of offending any segment of the public to keep it from saying whatever needs to be said.

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

The most important reason for the changes in NATIONAL VANGUARD is that we want it to be a more effective tool for reaching and moving people of the right sort, who understand that knowledge always carries with it a responsibility for action.

We have been able to build our circulation to its present level only because our readers have participated actively in the task, telling friends, neighbors, and colleagues about NATIONAL VANGUARD. That has required courage, because the promotion of heresy has always been a hazardous enterprise. And it has required persistence, because many people do not want to hear truths which impose troubling, new responsibilities on them.

Putting our truths into a more presentable package does not eliminate the need for courage and persistence, but it should yield a greater reward for those virtues, a greater willingness to consider the truths on their own merits.

Hopefully, it will also move some to do more than consider and accept. By providing a somewhat more inviting medium, the new NATIONAL VANGUARD should induce more of those who are able to participate in the formulation of the ideas in it to do so.

Finally, the effectiveness of any tool depends upon the user. We hope that we have provided all our readers with a tool they will be more willing to use. But it is a tool in your hands now. Please use it.

W.L.P.

The National Alliance in Europe

Commentary by Dr. Pierce from October 1998:

Report from Greece

On October 24 and 25 I attended an international conference of nationalists in Thessaloniki, Greece.  Also attending the conference were representatives of groups in Greece, Portugal, Romania, Flanders, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, South Africa, and Austria.  It was hoped that representatives of Russian groups also would be present, but none was able to attend.  The Alliance was the only group in the United States represented.  The conference was hosted by the Greek nationalist group Golden Dawn.

In a formal session on October 24 I spoke to approximately 200 representatives of other groups about the work of the Alliance and listened to many reports about the work of other organizations.  On the following day I had informal conversations with a number of individuals.  On October 26, I visited German and French nationalists in Augsburg, Germany, who had been unable to attend the conference.

Altogether this conference and the attendant traveling kept me away from the National Office for six days, but I believe that it was time well spent.  Cooperation across national borders will become increasingly important for progress – and perhaps even for survival – in the future.  But to be able to have meaningful cooperation in the future, we need to establish bonds of trust and understanding now.  At least some headway was made in that direction at the Thessaloniki meeting, as I established several new contacts and further developed contacts I had made earlier this year at the NPD meeting in Passau, Germany.

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

Cooperation across national borders will become increasingly important for progress – and perhaps even for survival – in the future.

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

Each time I visit a group in another country I learn new things and gain new insights into our struggle.  In Greece, for example, there is a much stronger sense of ethnic consciousness in the general public than exists in the United States.  This is especially true in northern Greece, in what used to be Macedonia, where Thessaloniki is located.  Nationalism in this area reaches a Balkan intensity, and memory of the struggle for freedom from Turkish rule is still very strong.

A group of about 50 of us took a guided tour of a historical museum, the Museum of the Macedonian Struggle, and were lectured by both a museum guide and our host about the historical exhibits.  Both were able to speak without inhibition about Macedonia’s liberation struggle and about the strong dislike Greeks have for Turks, with none of the disgusting Political Correctness which any museum guide in the United States would be bound by.

     

Despite the stronger sense of ethnic consciousness, Greece is more genetically mixed than the countries of northern Europe.  The people I saw in Thessalonki ranged from tall, light-eyed blondes to people who were so dark I wasn’t sure whether they were Greeks or Gypsies – until I saw some real Gypsies and could note the distinct differences.  Five hundred years of Turkish rule has taken a racial toll.

Much of the ethnic consciousness in Greece is based on culture: language, traditions, etc.  Nevertheless, Golden Dawn is an organization with a clear, genetically based racial policy.

Speaking of genes, I saw a substantially higher percentage of very attractive women in Thessaloniki than I have seen in any part of the United States.  While obesity seems almost to be the rule rather than the exception for women in the United States, I didn’t see a single obese woman in Thessaloniki.  Most had long, slender, shapely legs, which they were proud to display: quite a contrast with the disgusting scenes one sees in every supermarket in America.  I could almost believe that the ancient Greek practice of having young women as well as young men compete naked in athletic contests and thus develop a pride in possessing healthy and well-formed bodies is still effective today.  I saw not a single Black or Asian in the city, although I was told that a few were there.

And speaking of language, that turned out to be much less a barrier than I had feared.  Although simultaneous translation into Greek was provided when I delivered my talk to the conference, I found that I had little or no trouble in speaking with the other representatives.  Most of the Greeks could speak English moderately well – although I had a little trouble with vendors and hotel clerks.  I have hated to see the intrusion of American trash-culture into Europe, but the ease of communicating in English nearly everywhere certainly will make the development of international contacts easier.

Greece, despite its very rich and deep cultural roots, is in some ways a backward country:  certainly where the utilization of modern technology is concerned.  Whereas in America we take word processors, scanners, and laser printers for granted, they are by no means as common in Greece.  Likewise, Internet access is far less common in Greece, even among urban professionals.

In other ways, however, Greece is far ahead of most other countries in Europe:  in the lack of Jewish influence and the consequent greater degree of freedom the people have, for example.  Whereas in Germany citizens are imprisoned for even the slightest transgression against Political Correctness, in Greece people are still free to say nearly anything they want.  This makes Greece a convenient venue for international conferences of the sort I attended in Thessalonika.  The Jews and their collaborators are working to change this, of course, just as they are in the United States.

One thing I discovered which the Jews have done for the Alliance in places like Greece is gives us name recognition.  Every nationalist in Europe has heard about The Turner Diaries, for example.  And being promoted by B’nai B’rith as the most dangerous organization in America also has helped.

W.L.P.

Anatomy of the Internal Hater

From the National Alliance Members Bulletin,  February 1999:

What Makes a Hater?

A huge volume of e-mail flows into the National Office from people all over the world who are responding to our message, primarily our weekly radio broadcasts.  Evelyn Hill weeds out the illiterate, incoherent, and irrelevant mail and gives me a selection of 20 or so letters to read each day.  Between a fourth and a third of these are hate letters, and I always read them carefully.  For one thing they are a barometer of how worried about us the enemies of our people are:  from the volume and vehemence of the hate mail following each broadcast I can estimate how badly I have rattled our enemies’ cages.  Of course, rattling the cages is not my aim, but it is interesting to note what upsets the inmates and what doesn’t.  Even more interesting are the clues the hate letters provide to the psychology of the haters – and I am interested here only in the psychology of the White haters:  the psychology our internal enemies, not the psychology of the Jews or Blacks or other external enemies.

What I really would like is for a very bright member to write a doctoral thesis in psychology on this subject and develop detailed psychological profiles of the haters.  Until such a member comes forward, I must make my own amateur analyses.  One thing I already am inclined to believe is that there is no single profile which fits all the haters, although I believe that the majority of them do fit a certain pattern.  I already have mentioned in earlier issues of the BULLETIN that the two characteristics which show up most often in hate letters are Christianity and authoritarianism.  Most of the Christian haters seem to be under the impression that the Alliance is a Christian organization which is not acting in accord with their idea of Christianity, and so they try to explain to us what it is we’re doing which is un-Christian and then tell us that we’ll roast in hell if we don’t change our ways.

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

Christian haters and the authoritarian haters have similar thought patterns but simply express themselves differently 

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

Actually, there’s quite a bit of variety among the Christian hate letters.  One which arrived this month might be put into the sub-category of Jew-worship:  “I am convinced that Jews are indeed superior to Christians and we should honor them for their great contributions to civilization.  After all, don’t we Christians pray to the greatest Jew that ever lived?  Get real, guys.  Without Jews we’d all be a bunch of trailertrash (well, you already are trailer trash).”

On the other hand, the underlying message of the authoritarian haters seems to be, “You’re out of step with everyone else, damn you!  Why can’t you be like everyone else and stop rocking the boat?”  Possibly a more sophisticated observer than I would conclude that the Christian haters and the authoritarian haters have similar thought patterns but simply express themselves differently – which would suggest that a fundamental trait of most White haters is authoritarianism; some authoritarian haters are Christians, and some are not.

One of the more interesting hate letters which arrived this month came from a man using the pseudonym “Thomas Aquinas,”, which would suggest a Christian hater, but his letter is not explicitly Christian – although he does describe himself as a “God-fearing, White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant.”  It’s an exceptionally long letter, and so I’ll quote only a few passages from it here. What he tells us is that there always have been despicable oddballs like us in every society who complained about the way society was changing.  He even cites examples from ancient Assyria and ancient Greece.  And he’s undoubtedly correct that there always have been people who were unhappy with the way their societies were changing.

What’s interesting about his letter is his expression of hatred for such people.  After laying out his theory of history and trying to prove that we’re standing in the way of change, he writes: “I’ve plainly tried to lay it out for you here today.  And I really hope I cause you some pain with that, because I really hate y’all, more than I hate much else in this life.  Because it is people like you who give real decent, real hard-working, real open-minded people a more difficult time in their lives… having to explain… why we should ever tolerate you types…”  That’s mixed in with a lot of insulting language to the effect that we’re lazy, degenerate, drooling, closed-minded, pathetic morons (he uses all of those words), “spreading your poisonous thoughts that appeal to the weaker minds in our country.”

The writer goes on to say, “We have you outnumbered… history is on our side.”  He’s not really explicit about what his side is for or who’s on it, but many of the things he says suggest that what makes his side the winning side is that it’s the side of the majority, the side of the people who’re happy with the way things are going, the side that Bill Clinton and the producers and scriptwriters at MTV are on.  If one can extract an underlying philosophy from his letter, it seems to be this:  “Whatever way things are moving is the right way, because God wanted things to go that way, and any opposition to that way is evil.”

In reading his letter one gets the feeling that before deciding which side to cheer for he holds up a moistened forefinger up to the breeze of public opinion to find out what the current trend is, then cheers for the side moving in that direction – but with real conviction that he’s on the right side and with real hatred for those on the other side.  In this letter there’s not the explicit appeal to authority that one sees in many letters from authoritarians, but I have classified it as authoritarian anyway.

The reason I’m interested in the psychology of these people who write us hate letters is that I believe that they’re only the tip of the iceberg.  For every hater who writes to us there are thousands who don’t.  And I suspect that most of them are governed by the same psychological laws.  If we can understand those laws we can understand what makes much of the opposition tick.  Understanding how the opposition thinks doesn’t mean that we can win them over to our side, of course.  We may not even want to try very hard to avoid offending them.  But we have no hope of influencing them until we do understand them.  If authoritarianism is indeed the underlying trait of most of the “normal” White people who oppose us, we need to understand in detail exactly what authoritarianism is, its etiology, what other traits it is correlated with, and so on.  I suspect that the media Jews who design television propaganda already know these things.

It would be useful even to have a better understanding of the psychology of hate.  I always have assumed that hate is a natural defense mechanism:  people hate the things or people they feel threatened by.  If that is so, exactly why do some of our fellow White people feel threatened by us?  Specifically, what is it in the authoritarian individual’s personality that makes him feel threatened by us?

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

 [W]hat is it in the authoritarian individual’s personality that makes him feel threatened by us?

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

As I mentioned above, despite the authoritarian flavor of most hate letters, I am sure that not every hater is a compulsive authoritarian.  I am sure that there are some more or less “normal” White people who hate us for entirely rational reasons.  For example, there are White businessmen who are profiting from the flood of Third World immigrants pouring into America, and they resent anyone who opposes the flood and threatens their profits.  Such rational haters aren’t likely to send us hate letters, but they still can be moved if we understand which psychological buttons on them to push.

I appeal here to those of our members with more understanding of psychology than I have to share their insights with me.  I am sure that smart people somewhere have addressed themselves seriously to these questions and have written books or research papers dealing with them, because understanding how different types of people think is the key to influencing them:  to designing effective advertising, for example, and there’s enough money to be had from that to pay for much research.  Careful experiments must have been done to establish an empirical basis for a descriptive psychology, at least; there must be a number of detailed psychological profiles out there which it would behoove us to study.  If you know about such things, please share your knowledge with me.

Star-Spangled Symphony

From NATIONAL VANGUARD magazine Issue No. 87, June 1982:

Star-Spangled Symphony

Vic Olvir

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not money, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not money, I am nothing….And now abideth faith, hope, money, these three; but the greatest of these is money.

-- I Corinthians 13 (as adapted by George Orwell)

It should have surprised no student of modern America that Jerry Rubin, the radical firebrand of the ‘60’s who once urged college kids to kill their parents, became a Wall Street stockbroker a while back. Nor that Rubin’s buddy Abbie Hoffman shortly thereafter emerged from the “underground” brandishing a number of self-enrichment plans.

Money lust is the potent yeast in the otherwise unleavened dough which is 20th-century American society. It is the underlying, ever-recurring melody in a bizarre symphony of chaos and discord. Rich and poor; Republican, Democrat, and Independent; conservative, liberal, and Marxist; atheist and Christian; Rotarian and sophisticated liberati: the love of lucre is the driving force, the holy power which unites us as a nation. Should this hideous passion of our Republic suddenly abate, the nation would simply disappear like so many handkerchiefs in a third-rate magic act.

All the heralded “revolutions” against money-thought in America have been nothing but pathetic shams. The bohemians of the ‘20’s became real-estate entrepreneurs. The Reds of the ‘30’s and ‘40’s became high-living Hollywood luminaries. The beatniks of the ‘50’s were transformed into prophetic literary lions by the liberal press. The hippies of the ‘60’s opened boutiques and developed into fashion dictators. And, of course, those two comical and entertaining Jewish guys, Rubin and Hoffman, have at last found their predestined niche in society.

And while no one can predict with precise accuracy when the terrorists of the Weather Underground will begin soliciting bids for their potentially best-selling memoirs or the rights to a block-busting motion picture, anyone conversant with the sick, sick, sick psyche of the Home of the Brave can positively predict that such an event will happen sometime, somewhere.

Nor is this illumination of our dollar-dominated lives defused by the “born again” Christian phenomenon, which is simply another puerile display of the eternal child mind-set that has for so long – oh, so long – characterized the vacuous inhabitants of the New World. That whole, preposterous movement has nothing whatsoever to do with what the Western culture has traditionally considered to be “religion.” There is more religious intensity and feeling in ten lines of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, or in ten square inches of an El Greco canvas, than there is in the bamboozled brains of ten million of those tiresome brethren with the fish emblems on their car windows. The principle thrust of all this holy posturing has been to make fat the stock portfolios and bank accounts of Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, and the other overstuffed, suede-shoe messiahs of the born-again bonanza.

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

There is more religious intensity and feeling in ten lines of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, or in ten square inches of an El Greco canvas, than there is in the bamboozled brains of ten million of those tiresome brethren with the fish emblems on their car windows.

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

The subject of money and money-making mesmerizes the American. Any new book dealing with some aspect of the topic has little difficulty advancing to the top of the best-seller lists, with only the latest diet-craze tome to offer any serious competition. Schemes to get rich in real estate, mail order, pyramid sales, and food franchises are huckstered on every street corner, through the byways of every city, town, and village, feeding the avaricious dreams of the ever-hopeful, sucking up their worn and creased dollars like a gigantic vacuum cleaner.

Hundreds of financial and economic newsletters flood the market. Many of these predict imminent economic disaster while assuring us that there are profits in doom if we but harken to the sage advice of the resident wizard, who has magnanimously condescended to share his insights with the peasants – for the proper fee, naturally. Thus, after the collapse we can all come burrowing out of our holes with a ton of freeze-dried collard greens and a sackful of Krugerrands and resume our safe, bourgeois, democratic lives, only this time much richer.

A talk-show host recently stumbled onto the topic of money and the mysteries that enshroud it. It quickly became the most popular subject ever discussed on the show, and its enchantment didn’t subside for many weeks.

The voluptuous excitement that creeps over the American when he contemplates making money, and his sacrifice of family, friends, high culture, and common manners on the altar of Mammon have made the land a happy hunting ground for the Jew. Since the Jew has for centuries practiced money-thinking and is a past master of the art of amassing wealth, he is not merely a parasite on the American body politic but also a sort of senior partner to his less experienced but equally covetous fellow citizens: actually a complement to the other denizens of the Dollarocracy.

Today’s Jew who possesses great wealth is not viewed with scorn and contempt, but with admiration and envy: a complete reversal of the attitudes of the European of but a century ago. Because of their fiscal talents they are praised, pampered, fawned over, flattered, and feted. They, along with a motley Gentile gang of international shylocks based in New York, are thus the true royalty of America, the lords and sultans of Success.

To those who would say, “It’s the same everywhere,” let it be noted that money-thought rises in direct ratio to the decline of cultural ties and of racial and tribal instincts within a given land mass. The politics of most Latin American countries is dominated by money-corruption, but it is not as pandemic in the general population as it is here. In those lands and others as well there are still strong tribal bonds and a sense that the nation is a unity. Such feelings militate against money-thought on a grand scale.

Another interesting point to note is that American foreign policy has always reflected the dominance of the Dollarocracy. Wall Street would much rather deal with Marxists than with genuine nationalists who seek a third way between communism and capitalism. The unrelenting hostility of several consecutive administrations to Colonel Khaddafi of Libya is a recent case in point. A parallel situation was that of Juan Peron of Argentina; the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency waged a relentless was against him from the beginning.

Logically, it should be in the interests of the United States to encourage in all parts of the world strong and independent nationalists who are capable of making sweeping reforms. But money has its own logic, and the fraternity of shylocks who call the tune simply cannot tolerate an honest-to-God social nationalist in any country; in his person he would pose a terrible and visible threat to their own world view. And so the nationalists are pushed into the communist camp, and the Masters of Money continue to sow seeds of their own destruction and the collapse of their system in this world.

What, ultimately, defeats money? Neither pamphlets nor polemics, but the same thing that brought it victory, the evolution of Time in History, the diminishing of its fatal fascination in the hearts and minds of those very select men and women who have been chosen by some inscrutable Providence to keep alive the sacred flames of race and culture. As money-thought is excitement and life to the American of the 20th century, it will be disgust and death to those of the 21st. Money-thought has no long future, not for America, not for Europe, not for anyone – save, perhaps, Jews and other damned and hopeless races.

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

A purposeful and rich life is now possible only to those who feel and heed the call of blood, race, and culture.

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

The awful crisis of our age demands the intervention of those who think and act in terms of blood, of tribal and cultural bonds. The young men and women of today who continue to act and feel in terms of money-thought are dead without knowing it. A purposeful and rich life is now possible only to those who feel and heed the call of blood, race, and culture. They, the chosen, will well comprehend the words of the poet O’Boyle: The thirsty of soul soon learn to know/The moistureless froth of the social show;/The pious sham of the pompous feast/Where the heaviest purse is the highest priest.

The “pious sham of the pompous feast” totters toward its well-deserved grave; nothing can save it. A new world is being born in the hearts of our most valuable youth, and in the hearts of those yet unborn.

Self-Sufficiency: It Has Moral As Well As Physical Value

Editorial from National Vanguard Magazine Issue No.116, August-September 1996
Watching the News

I have friends who tell me that they don't like to watch television news broadcasts, because they find them depressing. I, on the other hand, look forward to watching the evening news every day. I usually find the news encouraging.

My friends are conservatives. I am not.

When they watch the news they see their world coming apart. They have been sacrificing and saving for years to send a son or daughter to Harvard, and what they see in the evening news gives them a nagging, subconscious worry about the ultimate value of their endeavor. Or they have been looking forward to retirement, to travel, or to a nicer home--to a time when they will be able to have a more enjoyable life--and the newscasters' images on their television screens have clouded their vision of the future, tarnished it, made it seem less attainable.

When I watch the news I see more evidence of the impending crackup of a system which has become terminally corrupt and which must be swept aside--not modified or reformed, but destroyed root and branch--before anything of lasting value can be built.

My friends depend on the system in one way or another, and so the daily portents of its imminent demise give them worry rather than pleasure. They agree with me about many of the concrete aspects of the system which are bad and which they would like to see changed: too many non-Whites, too much crime, too intrusive a government, too much environmental damage, too much Jewish power. Many even will agree about some of the more abstract problems: flawed values, flawed child-raising practices, spiritually debilitating life-styles. Their agreement is conditional, however: whatever pruning of the system is done to fix the problems must not cut off the particular limb on which they are sitting. Things need fixing, but not badly enough to jeopardize their own situations.

Thus, they felt a certain degree of embarrassment when the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee was jailed for stealing public funds and the President of the United States was sued for attempting to extort sexual services from a civil servant, while I was elated: thank you, Paula Jones! The O.J. Simpson verdict gave them indigestion; it got a whoop of delight from me. They moan about affirmative action, quotas, and set-asides, while I regard these racial levelling policies as a boon--not only because such policies alienate from the government the sort of people whose collaboration and support I am seeking in my campaign against the government, but also because they undermine the morale and efficiency of such agencies as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

I would love to see a week-long failure of the electrical power grid throughout the Northeast (or any other major section of the country), whereas my conservative friends, nearly all of whom are urbanites, must regard such a prospect with undiluted horror, for they know that it would put them and their families in a very real danger of being eaten.

I don't respond to the news the way I do because of some perverse delight in watching my conservative friends squirm--although that does provide a certain satisfaction. The news makes me happy more often than not because it is a continuing confirmation that the system is not working the way its advocates want it to work. If the system were working even moderately well, then the only possibilities for getting rid of it would be an unforeseen cataclysm--perhaps a large asteroid striking the earth (preferably about half way between the District of Columbia and New York City) and doing enough damage to create a clean slate, in effect, so far as mass media and governmental structures are concerned--or gradually persuading enough conservatives to saw off the limbs on which they presently are sitting so that they could constitute an anti-system bloc large enough to overturn the power structure by more or less conventional means. The chance of the former happening is not only unknown, but presumably quite small. The chance of the latter is much less.

People, in the mass, generally take the path of least resistance. They do not knowingly act against their own perceived interests, although they may be tricked by the mass media into perceiving their interests incorrectly or manipulated through their sub-rational urges into ignoring their real interests. In other words, if the system were working in a way that satisfied most of the needs of most of the people and gave them confidence that it would continue to do so, we revolutionaries would be reduced to waiting for a cataclysm--or doing something wild and desperate, with very little chance of success.

What I see in the news is not just the potholes in the road to the New World Order, but the fundamental structural flaws which assure me that the road will give way altogether and dump those depending on it into the swamp of chaos. It is built on the lie of equality. It is bedded in the crackpot assumption that one can take the diverse peoples and nations of the world, break down their ages-old institutions and customs, dissolve the bonds which have joined the individuals to their natural communities, obliterate their sense of racial or ethnic identity, and then pour the mass of indistinguishable "human" units so produced into a giant blender, which, with a heavy infusion of the right sort of propaganda, will yield the batter from which a strong and enduring New World Order can be cast.

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

What I see in the news is not just the potholes in the road to the New World Order, but the fundamental structural flaws which assure me that the road will give way altogether and dump those depending on it into the swamp of chaos.

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

Knowing that the present system will fail and being able to see the evidence of that impending failure growing day by day is the source of much of my optimism. The same evidence is the source of most of my conservative friends' pessimism.

There are other differences between me and my conservative friends: differences in temperament--and undoubtedly differences in values as well, despite their agreement with me on many issues. But the most important difference is one of situation: my conservative friends have structured their lives so that they are dependent on the present system in many ways, while I have deliberately made myself as independent of the system as I could.

When I left Washington, D.C., 11 years ago and began living on a mountain in one of the more primitive and remote areas of West Virginia, I tried to restructure my life in a way that left me with as little dependence on the government and the rest of the world as possible. My motivation was not fear of an imminent collapse of the system, but rather a desire to be able to do what I believed to be right without any strings holding me back. I wanted as little conflict as possible between my self-interest and my conscience.

I wanted to live on land on which I could hunt my meat and grow my own fruit and vegetables if I had to. I deliberately chose to heat all the dwellings on my mountain with windfall firewood and otherwise to minimize my dependence on outside utilities. And in fact, during massive power failures due to flooding in the valley below my mountain, one of which lasted four days and resulted in thousands of my low-lying neighbors seeking help from the National Guard and various Federal relief agencies, I was quite comfortable.

It is this difference in situations which, more than anything else, accounts for my optimism and my conservative friends' pessimism. Fortunately, some of my friends--the harder-headed ones--are beginning to draw some conclusions from what they see in the news and are beginning to look for ways to disentangle their own futures from that of the system. This is a development with very promising consequences.

I don't expect a mass exodus from the cities any time soon, with every White conservative headed for Idaho, Montana, or West Virginia. For most of them such a move is not economically feasible. Many have become too soft, mentally as well as physically, to end their dependence on the urban infrastructure. They wouldn't know how to handle a firearm or a chainsaw. They are too accustomed to paying a monthly bill for their water, their waste disposal, and their heat, and being able to telephone for the police or the fire department in an emergency.

The disentanglement I see developing is more a mental break with the system than a physical move away from it. A growing number of people now in their 20s and 30s who two generations ago would have looked forward to regular and dependable Social Security checks as the major part of their retirement income have stopped worrying about the impending bankruptcy of the Social Security system and have simply written off Social Security as their retirement mainstay; instead they are making other arrangements: investments which are more under their own control and less dependent on the solvency of the government.

Conservative parents, no matter how much they may worry about falling standards at Harvard, still haven't figured out an alternative to university training to keep their kids from slipping down into the proletariat. But more parents than ever before are postponing the exposure of their offspring to Political Correctness and the joys of multiculturalism by opting for home schooling--at least during the critical first few years.

Telecommuting, of course, is available to the fortunate few with the right skills. It frees them from the urban environment, but it still leaves them dependent on a monthly paycheck. Some, however, are able to go beyond telecommuting and achieve a greater degree of economic separation from the system by choosing self-employment. The balance between employee and free-lancer is shifting toward the latter with the ongoing erosion of the long-term economic security of employment, as the deindustrialization of America continues. It is more than the computer and economics which is driving the shift to self-employment, though: in many cases the person who chooses to be self-employed has made a conscious decision to minimize his dependence on the system.

Perhaps the most significant trend in this regard is the growing number of conservatives who are buying themselves a piece of mountain land as far away from the nearest urban area as possible and then spending their vacations building a cabin on it: not just a vacation home or a place for hunting, but a genuine getaway, a refuge to which they can retreat when life in the city is no longer feasible.

All of these uneasy conservatives who have made some sort of break with the system constitute only a minority so far. But the majority, lacking the skills or the savings or the initiative or the courage of the minority, are at least making an emotional break: more and more of them no longer become more worried when they see some new crack appearing in the system's structure: instead they become more angry. They can see their more fortunate or more able brethren packing their bags, in a manner of speaking, and the suspicion grows in them that they, the ones with no bags to pack, will be the ones left behind to satisfy the jungle appetites of the "equals" when the lights go off for good.

The promising thing about this process of loss of faith in the system and subsequent voluntary dissociation from it is that it is a nonlinear process: it feeds on itself and eventually reaches an avalanche stage. It is not necessary for me to urge my conservative friends to make the break: just seeing others do it will cause the pressure to build.

And there's nothing the evil creatures running this show from behind the scenes can do to stop the process. No amount of "fine tuning" can repair a system which is founded on false premises and is fundamentally unworkable. They can hardly abandon their egalitarian theory; if they did, their whole coalition of perverts, non-Whites, moral cripples, and other "equals," all of whom owe their free ride to the theory, would turn on them. Nor can they relax their grip by permitting any responsible or honorable man or any man not firmly in their control to attain high office. They really have a tiger by the tail. When potholes appear, all they can do is patch them with ever larger doses of the same lies and crackpot assumptions.

So, if watching the news is often depressing to my conservative friends, imagine what it is like for the liberals! Day by day they see the system on which they depend not only for their physical sustenance but also for their spiritual sustenance coming unraveled. They worry, like the conservatives, but in addition to worry a burning hatred grows in their souls. The conservatives have at least some degree of understanding that the system is failing because of its false basis, but to the liberals egalitarianism is as sound as gravity. Since the system cannot be failing due to its inherent falseness, the problem must lie with its external enemies: heterosexual White males must be conspiring to cause the system not to function properly, the dirty dogs!

The more they think about it the more hateful they become. How dare those White racists criticize the O.J. Simpson verdict! It's obvious that that racist cop, Mark Fuhrman, framed O.J., and the Black jury was smart enough to figure it out.

How dare those working-class Whites complain about affirmative action employment programs or about government programs to relocate Blacks from the inner cities to the White suburbs! They're nothing but haters and bigots, and they should be locked up for opposing our efforts to "equalize" them with African-Americans.

And how dare those militias and Freemen not love our government! Don't those stupid rednecks realize what a wonderful instrument of progress the government is? How could we ever get to the New World Order without the government?

The unanimously venomous attitude of the controlled media toward the Montana Freemen, a harmless bunch of hard-luck farmers with whacky religious ideas and whackier ideas about economics and finance, was revealing. The Freemen never hurt anyone and never intended to hurt anyone, but they refused to accept the authority of the government--the government upon which the liberals depend to implement ideas far whackier than anything dreamed up by the Freemen--and so editorial writers raged at them and urged the FBI to advance on them with machine guns and flamethrowers blazing.

One of the most powerful indicators of the way in which liberals are responding to the news these days has been their reaction to the burnings of Black churches across the South. No sooner had the controlled media declared the church burnings to be a major issue than Mr. Clinton was on television announcing that he "knew" that organized White racism was responsible, and it wouldn't be tolerated.

I wondered at the time whether or not Mr. Clinton had some inside information, because I wasn't sure at all that the burnings were an organized effort by White racists. It may yet turn out that way, but I strongly doubt it: I know lots of White racists, organized and otherwise, and this just isn't their style. A boozed-up Ku Kluxer might have torched a Black church here or there, but the multi-state string of burnings just doesn't have the feel of the work of a White racist organization.

Apparently the secret police figured that too. They learned in school that most cases of arson are associated with insurance fraud, and so they began questioning Black parishioners and asking Black preachers to take lie-detector tests, causing an outburst of liberal indignation in the controlled media. The racist cops are blaming the victims! Quit investigating Blacks and start arresting White racists!

A typical case was an editorial in the Charleston Gazette (June 18), a raving-liberal West Virginia newspaper which is an embarrassment to an otherwise decent state:

Raw racism seems to be the motive.

As we've said before, Americans generally are decent, compassionate people who don't feel racial hate. But the nation still has a vein of bigotry--and a few racists are brutal enough to join hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan or the Freemen.

Extreme bigots presumably are starting the fires, even though investigators haven't yet found evidence of an organized conspiracy. Our guess is that a few white rednecks, half drunk in a Southern roadhouse, see a TV report of a Black church burning and decide to inflict the same punishment on Blacks in their vicinity.

Churches are a natural target for race-haters. . . . Just because they're idiots doesn't mean they aren't disgusting criminals who must be locked in prison. The wave of black church fires has gripped the conscience of America. Leaders and groups at every level are calling for a national crackdown. Decent Americans who feel no hostility should lend their voices to the outcry and exert pressure until all the arsonists are prosecuted.

"Raw racism seems to be the motive." "Extreme bigots presumably are starting the fires." What the editor really means is that he hopes White racists are burning the churches, so that they can be caught and punished. He's praying that a racist conspiracy will be discovered, so that it can be stamped out, hopefully with a high body count. And as for "Americans who feel no hostility," he clearly is not among them.

Or consider this bit of rabid commentary by Washington Post columnist Carl Rowan. It was in the June 13 edition and was titled "Church Bombers and The Turner Diaries":

I think that there is a grotesque conspiracy to "save the white race" afoot in America, and that the church bombings [sic] are part of a plot to provoke blacks to react violently, thus giving all the hate groups in the land an excuse to uncover their caches of weapons and use them against blacks and against whites who sympathize with blacks.

I have turned anew to The Turner Diaries, the revolutionary "bible" of the Montana Freemen, the Aryan Supremacists, and the militiamen and others who threaten to "solve the race problem" by killing Blacks, Jews, and liberals. This little 210-page book written by West Virginia professor William Pierce under the pseudonym Andrew Macdonald is the most diabolically violent plan for solving America's racial and social problems that I have ever read.

 Rowan follows with a long extract from The Turner Diaries to prove his point and concludes:

The bigots who seek to destroy "the system" clearly believe that even if they burned 10,000 black churches, most of "the white race" would side with them if outraged blacks or their federal protectors took up arms against the arsonists. Federal authorities know this; thus their caution, even timidity, in cracking down on the Freemen, or the rash of new hate groups, or the weird souls who are stockpiling weapons they expect to use against their state and federal governments.

The church bombings reflect a race madness that is far worse than we want to think it is. A lot more people are in grave danger than those who worship in black churches.

Hatred and hostility, stemming from fear, in the Charleston Gazette ; galloping paranoia, stemming from fear, in the Washington Post. And these two examples are pretty typical of the liberal response everywhere to the church burnings.

The facts are not yet all in, but the arson cases which have been solved to date suggest something quite different from Bill Clinton's or Carl Rowan's assumption of a White racist conspiracy or even the Charleston Gazette's assumption of groups of White rednecks wanting to punish Blacks.

Alabama Fire Marshal John Robison has investigated 38 cases of arson or suspected arson of churches in Alabama, 15 of them Black churches, since 1991, and he's found no evidence of racial motives in any of them. In one case, that of the Antioch A.M.E. Church in Fort Deposit, the Black minister was charged with burning her own church. "The pastor was upset with the congregation about money; she felt she didn't get paid enough," said Robison.

On June 18 four Black children, aged 12 and under, were arrested for setting a fire in a Black church in Florence, South Carolina. Of 27 church fires which have been investigated in South Carolina since 1991, 15 of them were in Black churches, and a total of six Whites and six Blacks have been arrested in connection with those 15 cases.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation has investigated seven church burnings in Georgia during the past 18 months. Six of the seven churches had White congregations. The one Black church which was burned, in February 1995, was torched by a Black juvenile.

On June 19 two Black men were arrested in Columbus County, North Carolina, and charged with burning a building on the grounds of the Black Mount Tabor Baptist Church. The previous week a 12-year-old White girl was arrested for setting a fire which destroyed an abandoned building on the grounds of a Black church in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Pretty inconclusive evidence, it seems to me--although I wouldn't bet that Mr. Clinton's BATF goons can't find some kind of conspiracy, if they try hard enough to please their boss.

The hysterical reaction of liberals to all of this suggests several things. First, liberals want there to be a White conspiracy behind it, because that would tend to confirm their theory about race relations generally: namely, whenever things don't work the way liberal theory says they should work, the reason is White racism. Second, they really believe there is a White conspiracy, because so many of their plans have been going off the rails lately that they're becoming a little paranoid. Third, they're frightened; it's clear that more and more people are turning against the government, or at least losing faith in the government, and the government is the only protection which stands between them and the wrath of the heterosexual White males they have treated so contemptuously for so long. It is their fear, I believe, which explains the increasing level of viciousness and hatred we are seeing in liberal condemnations of the government's enemies.

Yes, watching the news these days is hard on my conservative friends--but it really must be killing the liberals!

W.L.P

Principles of Organization

From ATTACK! Tabloid, November 1974:

Dear Friends and Fellow Fighters for a New Order:

The proper structure of any organization depends on the goals of that organization and the conditions under which it is obliged to strive toward those goals. The long-range goals of the National Alliance are of unprecedented magnitude, and the conditions under which we must work, while not unprecedented in difficulty, are certainly formidable enough.

We want to build a whole new world, and we want to build it on a radically different ideological basis from that of the present world. In order to do so we must contend with the most determined and even fanatical opposition from the carriers of the Judeo-liberal-democratic sickness and from all those with a vested interest in the present System. Unfortunately, our opponents are able to marshal overwhelming forces against us and have almost unlimited resources at their disposal. Their chief strength, of course, is their monopoly control of the mass media. Not to be forgotten, however, are their dreadful power of the purse and their ability to deploy all the police powers of the state against us.

We are at present not only a minority but an unpopular minority. If our fellow Americans had not been hypnotized by the mass media, most of them would find themselves in agreement with the ideals for which we stand. But the Enemy has managed to raise a barrier of fear and misunderstanding between us and the public, a barrier which we must break down.

Although a national awakening is already beginning, until we have been able to completely overcome the insidious effects of the Enemy’s brainwashing of our fellow Americans – and that is a task which must be measured in years – we must count on the continued indifference or hostility of many of those we are trying to reach, and we will remain a minority, albeit a growing one.

These considerations condition the general organizational principles which guide us in the building the Alliance. Those general principles are:

1) FUNCTIONALITY. The Alliance must grow in a functional way. Its form and structure must be determined, first, by its primary task, which is the propaganda of our message of hope for a spiritual rebirth and a new life for our race; and, second, by its secondary task, which is to provide, eventually, the complete organizational framework for a new society and a new government. In other words, we are and will remain, first and foremost, a propaganda-making organization. We understand the term propaganda in its broadest sense, including both propaganda of the word and propaganda of the deed – in short, all feasible means for capturing the hearts and minds of our fellows.

But we are also the see of a new society, a new racial and national community. As time passes and we gain members, that seed will grow into a complete and functional community within the larger

community which it will one day replace, a state within the state which it will one day supersede.

2) MASS ORIENTATION. The Alliance must have a mass basis of support and of participation in its program, and it must keep is propaganda oriented toward a mass audience. It must avoid dependence for its support upon the representatives of any single special interest, and it must not restrict its appeal to any segment of the population defined in terms of occupation, income, age, geography, educational level, or present ideological orientation.

3) PERSONALITY. From the generalized mass which responds to its appeal, the Alliance sifts out those most capable of strengthening its cadres. The structure of the organization must always be such that the man or woman with greater understanding and self-discipline is able to fill a proportionately greater role in its program and make a larger contribution to its efforts than those less well endowed.

4) UNITY. The Alliance must be monolithic in purpose, in doctrine, and in strategy. Although it draws its recruits from left and right, from both radical and conservative elements of the population, and although it utilizes them in many different ways and to many different degrees, it must keep them always directed toward the common purpose.

5) FLEXIBILITY. In tactics the Alliance must remain completely flexible. Any means are permissible in achieving its ends, so long as the means do not contradict the ends.

Though our purpose remains unchanging, we may change tactics from day to day or use different tactics in different places at the same time. Our doctrine is based on the eternal and God ordained laws of Nature, but our tactics are based on the demands and the resources of the moment.

The ways in which these five principles of organization are applied to the structure and growth of the Alliance cannot be fully discussed here, but a few illustrative examples can be given. The principle of functionality lies behind the relative emphasis given to the production and public distribution of ATTACK!, as opposed to other activities which might receive this emphasis instead. An ultra-left group, such as the Symbionese Liberation Army, can kidnap someone or blow up a government building, and the news media will glamorize that group and disseminate its message to the public.

That doesn’t work for us, however. If we want the public to recognize and understand us, we must reach them through our own channels of communication. Since our aim is to replace existing institutions with our own, we must develop the basis for a smoothly functioning propaganda machine which can grow and diversify and become stronger until it if effectively competing with the controlled media for the attention of the public.

The principle of mass orientation has not played as large a role in the growth of the Alliance as it will in the future. When the economy is functioning smoothly enough so that the average citizen can maintain his accustomed standard of living, it’s hard to attract his attention to even the most urgent racial, social, or political issues. The world may be crumbling into ruin around him, but so long as he can sit in front of his TV set with his beer, he doesn’t care. Only a racially conscious minority will respond to the appeal of the Alliance under such conditions.

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

   [T]he Alliance provides a maximum opportunity for individual initiative on the part of its members. Those who seize this opportunity are able to play a leading role in the development of the Alliance. Those who do not will never be artificially boosted into leading positions.

************************ 

But when the economy falters, the masses become more receptive to criticism of the System and more willing to consider alternatives. There has already been an increase in emphasis on economic issues in our propaganda in the last few months, and the future will see a further shift in this direction as well as the introduction of new propaganda techniques more suited for reaching a mass audience than our previous efforts.

Our mass orientation affects the choice of our means of propaganda as well as its content. Thus, we have shifted from mailing as the primary means for the dissemination of our propaganda materials, to street distributions. Mailings generally go to a minority which has already given some evidence of a particular ideological orientation, whereas street distributions reach everyone.

The principle of personality stems from a recognition that human history is a record of the thoughts, achievements, and deeds of exceptional individuals. Applied to the structuring of a society or an organization, it tells us that the most progressive structure is the one which has built into it a mechanism of natural selection for bringing those individuals of greatest ability and will into positions of leadership.

Thus, the Alliance provides a maximum opportunity for individual initiative on the part of its members. Those who seize this opportunity are able to play a leading role in the development of the Alliance. Those who do not will never be artificially boosted into leading positions. Authority within the Alliance is always earned, never bestowed as a favor.

The policy of the Alliance, which consists of members widely distributed geographically, is maintained through the leading role played by the National Office. Although individual members and Action Units often produce their own leaflets dealing with local issues and otherwise engage in propaganda on their own initiative, ATTACK! provides the ideological guidelines for everyone.