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/

Dr. Pierce on Necessity of Staying "Legal"

Editorial by Dr. William L. Pierce, National Socialist World journal, Winter 1968:

Revolution & Legality

 "In a sense, this essay is a precursor of [Dr. Pierce's]
 shift in approach from the National Socialists White Peoples
Party to the National Youth Alliance." -James Harting

Two classes of concepts which are fundamentally different in nature, yet often confused, are those having to do with doctrine and those concerned with tactics. The former are independent of changing circumstances and conditions; the latter are strongly dependent on these things. We make an extremely grave error when we treat a doctrinal point as if it were a tactical matter, but we also make a serious error when we assign to some tactical consideration the attributes of a point of doctrine.

The National Socialist movement has generally been considered to be an element of the "right wing," albeit an extreme element. Indeed, we apparently share a number of things with other right-wing elements, such as anti-Marxism, a respect for tradition, and support for the forces of law and order, That last has meant, among other things, that we have constrained ourselves to the use of "legal" methods only in our struggle.

Now, whereas our anti-Marxism is implicit in our National Socialist doctrine, our self-restriction to legal methods is tactical in nature.¹ Because the movement has, however, since 1923, insisted upon "legality" in its relationship with constituted authority, some may have fallen into the error of thinking that this insistence stems from doctrinal considerations about the sanctity of "law and order." Under certain conditions this error can lead to disastrous consequences. Since the occurrence of these "certain conditions" in the foreseeable future is by no means a merely academic possibility, it may be worthwhile to examine this problem in detail. 

In terms of the most fundamental National Socialist criterion, the question is: Is the support of the constituted authority and the maintenance of law and order in the best long-term interest of the race? And the self-evident answer is, that this depends upon the nature and the aims of the particular constituted authority in question. For while it is true that when a State is fulfilling its proper function as defender and champion of the racial interests of its people the aims of race and law and order become identical, those aims no longer coincide when the State strays from its proper role. In this respect the teachings of the Leader are quite clear:

The State is a means to an end. This end is the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually homogeneous living creatures. This preservation itself includes, firstly, subsistence as a race and thus permits the free development of all powers slumbering within that race."...States that do not serve this purpose are mistakes, nay, monstrosities. The fact of their existence does not alter this any more than the success of a crew of buccaneers can justify piracy."...We must make a sharp distinction between the State as a vessel and the race as its content. This vessel has a purpose only so long as it can preserve and protect the content; otherwise it is worthless.²

Strictly speaking, only a National socialist State can fully satisfy our criterion: any other State formation can only approximate the ideal role of the State as defender and champion of the racial interests of its people; and in this light the present day Western democracies can only be described as monstrosities. 

If a State can be carried through a peaceful evolution toward its proper role, then this course should be followed, for we certainly do not seek a state of anarchy and chaos as an end in itself. There are always dangers inherent in such a situation: more than one revolution has gone astray during its violent phase, emerging from the conflict with an altogether different character than upon entering.

On the other hand, neither must peaceful revolution be sought as an end in itself. Where it does not provide a realistic and practical course of action, it must be abandoned without hesitation for other means.

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

"We are 'legal' now because we dare not be otherwise."

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

Considering the present array of State formations with which we are faced, the question which naturally arises is this: is it conceivable that any of these degenerate and racially destructive entities can be smoothly transformed into a National Socialist State? Or must we think in terms of a total leveling of the present structures before we can hope to begin building a new structure on sound foundations? Whatever our answer, it must be based only upon an evaluation of the possibilities inherent in the various paths leading to our ultimate racial goals, and not upon any false conception of our obligations toward any presently existing State authority.

Again, the Leader has spelled this out for us:

State authority cannot exist as an end in itself, or every tyranny in this world would be sacred and untouchable. If, by the instrument of governmental authority, a people is being driven to its destruction, then rebellion is not only the right but the duty of every member of that people... In general , it must never be forgotten that the highest purpose of man's existence is not the maintenance of a State, let alone of a government, but the preservation of its own kind. Let that be in danger of suppression or destruction, and the question of legality is but subordinate. Then, though the methods of the ruling power be a thousand times 'legal,' the self-preservation of the oppressed is always the noblest justification for a struggle using any and every weapon.³

Why, then, the insistence up till now on "legality" in our struggle? The answer is that we are faced with the same difficulty today that confronted the Movement forty-five years ago in Germany: the enemy, with ll the repressive powers of the State at his disposal, is far stronger physically than we. In any shooting match with the State authority, we are bound to lose decisively, just as we lost on November 9, 1923.

The fact that the anarchist elements among the Jews are able to use illegal means with relative impunity in their assault upon "the Establishment" should not mislead us into thinking that the same tactics will work for us. In the first place, we do not have the allies in the Establishment that they have. We cannot provoke large-scale violence and disorder and receive a gentle slap on the wrist in reprisal, as they can. In the second place, we and they have entirely different aims. Since their purpose is, above all, to destroy the existing order of things, they have a much greater freedom of action than we have; they can carry out their purpose with a much looser organizational structure than we can ours, and thus they are relatively less susceptible to counterattack.

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

"[T]he key to success in the struggle ahead is self-discipline."

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

We are "legal" now because we dare not be otherwise; we are yet too weak to defy the State authority successfully. At the same time, as long as we are weak and ineffective the State feels no real threat from us, and, therefore, no pressing need to destroy us. But our relationship to the State is changing, and we are entering a new and critical phase of our development -- one in which we are becoming too strong for the State to ignore, yet not strong enough to defend ourselves from its attacks. These attacks will progress from quasi-legal harassment, intimidation of our members and supporters, and interference with our mail to illegal arrests and criminal charges based on falsified evidence, the withdrawal of police protection, and -- eventually -- outlawry through special legislation. Whenever in the course of these developments we allow ourselves to be provoked into illegal counteraction, we provide the State with the powerful weapon of self-justification. 

Yet, the conflict seems inevitable, for before our struggle is over each and every criminal comprising the System will have a pretty good idea just what fate awaits him at our hands. Very few are likely to deceive themselves into believing that we are "just another Party," with which they can reach an "understanding" which will leave the System largely intact. They will almost certainly realize that a triumphant National Socialism will mean not only a permanent end to their whole way of life, but an end to life itself for many of them. This knowledge will not incline them to yield gracefully to us.

Despite what lies ahead, however, we must strenuously avoid yielding to the temptation to retaliate prematurely to the provocations that beset us. When we do take the very grave step of illegal action, it must only be because the further progress of the Movement demands it -- not because we can no longer repress the urge to satisfy our thirst for vengeance or because irresponsible elements in the Movement have not been kept under close enough rein. 

Thus, the key to success in the struggle ahead is self-discipline. While it is the time to be "legal" we must stolidly endure whatever the State sees fit to inflict upon us. And when it is time to revolt, we must be prepared to unleash all the furies of hell on the State until it yields.

W.L.P.

______________________________________________

1. And our respect for tradition is often tactical rather than doctrinal; it makes a great deal of difference about which traditions we are talking.

2. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, II, Chap. 2.

3. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, I, chap. 3.

Dr. Pierce Discusses Fight Against "Racism"

From Attack! tabloid, No. 27, 1974

Revolt of the Submen

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

A FEW YEARS AGO “fascism” was the number-one devil of the radical Left. Today it is “racism.” This change is significant, and a close look at the reasons behind it reveals to us, in starkly simple terms, the fundamental nature of communism and the true motives of its promoters.

The switch in emphasis from anti-fascism to anti-racism is not the only major change in the communist image which has taken place in recent years, of course. Long gone are the soapbox haranguers with the Yiddish accents who in pre-World War II days exhorted the workers to cast off their chains. Today their sons and daughters in the so-called “New Left” are on an entirely different tack.

Americans Wouldn’t Bite

American workers, even during the most difficult periods of the nation’s history, were never desperate enough or stupid enough to swallow the lie that they could come out ahead by exchanging their capitalist chains for communist chains. Instead, they strived to make their capitalist chains more tolerable.

Through aspiration and diligence they succeeded in large measure, many even becoming mini-capitalists themselves. To be sure, inflation has recently made the American worker’s effort to maintain his standard of living akin to the hopeless task of Sisyphus. A lot of hard work and a little common sense have, nevertheless, remained a more appealing formula than any Marxist doubletalk about “expropriation” or a “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Black Recruits

Thus, the majority of the White American working class was long ago written off by the Marxist planners as an impossible bunch of rednecks and reactionaries, even though lip-service is still paid to the old goal of “workers’ solidarity,” especially in some of the redder unions. The Reds began looking instead to the growing masses of non-Whites in American cities as the proper raw material for their revolutionary army.

The Negroes in America have always been a factor in communist plans, but World War II was the real watershed between the former emphasis on White workers and the beginning of a gradual shift to non-Whites—a shift which has become completely obvious only in the last year or two.

As early as 1912 Israel Cohen, a Marxist living in England, wrote in his A Racial Program for the 20th Century that the growing Black population of America should be regarded as the key to the delivery of the Western Hemisphere into communist hands, but for many years Cohen’s plan was kept on the back burner.

Promiscuous Fecundity

During World War II, however, the slow migration of Blacks from Southern farms to industrial cities all over the country was given a great impetus. Many American cities which were nearly all-White in 1941 have become predominately Black—or, at least, predominately non-White. Not only the urban migration, but increased immigration from the Caribbean and the darker areas of Latin America and an astounding non-White rate of reproduction, encouraged by a welfare system which rewards promiscuous fecundity, have resulted in the color shift in America’s cities.

Inferiority Is Essential

The precondition for any successful communist activity is a society containing at least one recognizable category of people obsessed by a feeling of inferiority. The first task of the communist cadres is to transform that feeling of inferiority—whether it stems from artificial, class divisions or from natural, biological differences—into resentment and hatred of all those who do not belong to the inferior category. That hatred then becomes the driving force of a movement to destroy society’s superior elements, since they are, by communist reasoning, responsible for the inferiority of the others: without superiority there can be no inferiority.

America’s White workers, though often recognizing that they were being unfairly used, never really felt, as a whole, that they were irreconcilably inferior to those using them. Furthermore, they preferred to remedy in their own way whatever inequities they felt, without the help of any outsiders as their self-appointed leaders.

America’s non-White minorities—especially the Blacks—are in a fundamentally different position. What can they do to salve their feeling of inferiority? Racial integration has only made it worse.

When they attended all-Black schools and lived in all-Black communities, they certainly were not pleased by the contrast they could see between White America’s standard of living and their own. But that resentment was nothing compared to their feelings now, when they are forced each day to compete with the Whites, in the schools, on the job, and in the marketplace.

No More Excuses

All the old excuses for an inferior status no longer yield any comfort. When Whitey, in his big, fine house across the tracks, could be blamed for holding the Black man down, there was some solace. But now, with all Whitey’s barriers down and the Black man still unable to compete on an equal basis, a much deeper sense of inferiority is turning resentment into a raging, bloodthirsty hatred.

The dirge of “we shall overcome” has given way to the cry of “kill Whitey!” That is a sentiment the communists know well how to use!

Embarrassing Preponderance

During the 1960s the Students for a Democratic Society and other New Left organizations were largely Jewish in makeup. A heavily Jewish leadership made a strong effort to build a mass communist movement of alienated young Whites on university campuses and in the “street” communities of young dropouts.

The White response was marginal, however, and SDS and the other groups ended up with a rank and file which displayed nearly the same embarrassing preponderance of Jewish faces as the leadership cadres. Thus, for example, when the Ohio National Guard opened fire on a group of leftist rioters at Kent State University on May 4, 1970, three out of the four students killed were Jews—and the fourth was an ROTC student not participating in the riot who was accidentally hit by a stray bullet.

ACTUAL SUBSCRIPTION AD for tabloid published by National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC), a New Left group. Classic Jewish profile of tabloid salesman is typical of New Left cadres.

New Plans, New Faces, New Enemy

The American pullout from Vietnam gave the New Left a chance to withdraw temporarily from the field of action and make new plans. They are back now, and they have both a new set of faces and a new name for the enemy.

The new faces are black and brown and every shade in between—even a few red and yellow ones—and the enemy’s name has changed from “imperialist military-industrial complex” to “racist ruling class. ” The same Jews, of course, are calling the shots.

The reason the enemy must be smashed is no longer because he is waging an imperialist war in Indochina but because he is oppressing the non-White workers of America.

Black “Leaders”

The Old Left, i.e., the Communist Party USA, has been on the anti-racist track even longer. Since 1961 their figurehead party chairman has been a Negro. In 1968 they ran a Black woman as their candidate for President of the United States, and in 1972 their vice- presidential candidate was a Negro.

The rhetoric of SDS and other Red groups now relates nearly all their old, standard, bread-and-butter economic issues to a racial theme: members of the ruling class in industry and business are holding non-Whites back from the best jobs and from promotions; in the armed services the military branch of the ruling class is giving Blacks the hardest work and the most dangerous missions and punishing them more severely than White transgressors for breaches of military discipline; ruling-class administrators and professors on the campuses are conspiring to keep non-Whites from enrolling and to keep those who do manage to get in from getting good enough grades to graduate to top-paying jobs. And, of course, it is racist members of the same, hated ruling class who run the government and are conspiring to deprive Blacks, Chicanos, Indians, etc. of welfare payments, health benefits, food stamps, subsidized housing, and human dignity.

TYPICAL SDS CONTINGENT at City College of New York. This group, headed by the Jewess in the center, has as its only White member the slack-jawed specimen on the right. SDS is recruiting not just Negroes, but half-castes of every shade and racial background, all united in their hatred of the White “ruling class.”

Fellow Travelers

Absolutely essential to the political strategy of the New Left is the same thing on which the Old Left depended so heavily: the active collaboration of a vast number of “liberal” fellow travelers.

Liberals formerly supported Red programs in order to “fight fascism.” Today it is to “end discrimination.”

Middle-class liberals who would not dream of throwing a bomb at a police station, or even marching in a Red demonstration, sponsor boycotts against all lettuce and grapes not picked by a Chicano union. Through their churches they give money to Black terrorist groups waging guerrilla warfare against White farmers in Rhodesia. And through political donations and campaign work for both the major parties they sent the men to Washington who have given us school bussing; preferential Black hiring quotas; and racially integrated, drug-ridden armed services.

FRONT PAGE OF TABLOID published by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Note the “SMASH RACISM” logotype. The one theme of the publications is the advancement of non-Whites by banning “racist” research and textbooks, silencing “racist” professors, etc.

Intimidated Public

Also essential to the Reds’ success is the passive collaboration of a thoroughly intimidated general public–all those who are afraid to oppose them because they don’t want to be called “racists,” just as a few years earlier they were afraid to be called “reactionaries” or “fascists” for standing up for what they believed.

Nowhere is the new image of the New Left more forcibly displayed than on America’s college campuses. No longer is the SDS burning campus ROTC buildings; now the fire is being concentrated on “racist” administrators, professors, and textbooks.

Attacking Dr. Shockley

DR. WILLIAM SHOCKLEY

Currently the most popular campus target of the New Left is Dr. William Shockley, who has been presenting—or attempting to present—his proof of the genetic basis of Negro mental inferiority to university audiences around the country. The Reds almost invariably use an appearance by Shockley as an excuse to turn a campus upside down.

It is relatively easy for them to convince Blacks on the campus and in the surrounding community that Shockley is advocating the mass extermination of non-Whites. Campus Jews pin yellow Stars of David on their clothes and dust off all the tired, old concentration-camp stories about Nazi medical experiments and gas chambers.

Leaflets are mimeographed, bomb threats are telephoned to the administration and to the group sponsoring Shockley’s visit, anti-racist rallies are held, and, on the day of the scheduled lecture, picket lines are set up around the auditorium.

The Reds pack the hall with their fellow travelers, while roving gangs of Negro athletes threaten other students who try to get inside. When Shockley attempts to speak he is drowned out by shouted obscenities and chants of “No free speech for racists!”

Spineless Officials

Dr. Shockley, of course, understands the necessity of such confrontations for provoking the Reds into playing their whole hand, and he perseveres. Others are not so bold, however. On campus after campus spineless administrators cave in to demands to cancel Shockley’s speaking engagements and to ban the use of biology, psychology, and sociology textbooks which even hint at the facts of race.

Ironically, many fellow travelers have also found themselves targets of the Reds’ wrath. In order to draw fire one does not have to pose any substantial challenge to the equality myth; it is sufficient to suggest that perhaps IQ tests may still have some value, or that “racist” books should be ridiculed but not burned, or that there may be certain biological differences between Blacks and Whites.

Reaping the Whirlwind

A nutrition research laboratory was wrecked by Reds on one campus because the “racist” director of research insisted on maintaining that there are genetically based differences in nutritional requirements between Negros and Caucasians. It didn’t help a bit for him to protest, “I’m not a racist; I marched at Selma!”

At Temple University, in Philadelphia, English professor Dr. J. Mitchel Morse has been under attack as a “racist” for writing a textbook which describes Negro ghetto dialect as inferior to Standard English. His thesis is that Negroes should be taught to speak, read, and write exactly the same as Whites. For this, his classes have been disrupted by SDS members and the Temple University administration has been presented with demands that he be fired.

Morse has angrily remonstrated with SDS hecklers,”How dare you call me a racist when I’ve been an anti-racist all my life?” But the heckling and disruptions continue.

The Streaking Conspiracy

The New Left now interprets virtually every social phenomenon in terms of “racism”—even streaking. The March-April issue of New Left Notes (published by SDS) has an article titled “Streaking: Bosses Exposed” which concludes that streaking is the product of a conspiracy by the ruling class to divert students’ attention and energy away from the fight against racism.

The immediate goal of all this New Left activity is twofold. First and foremost is the campaign to organize the non-Whites of America into a revolutionary political force which can be used to destroy the White “ruling class.”

Against all Standards

A variation of the carrot-and-stick approach is used here. Blacks, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans—in fact, every misbegotten half-caste the Reds can dredge from the cesspools of miscegenation which America’s cities have become—are flattered by the uncompromising insistence on their absolute “equality.”

RECRUITING AD for Young Socialist Alliance, another New Left organization. Notice that the ad appeals specifically to Black, Chicano, Puerto Rican, and Indian workers, but not to Whites.

The New Left’s demands for open admissions (no grade requirements) at colleges, for the abolition of examinations and course standards, and for the stamping out of other forms of supposed “discrimination” against non-Whites, both on campus and off, are winning the hearts of those who see every one of White society’s criteria for quality or efficiency as an obstacle designed to keep them “in their place.”

The Stick

At the same time the Reds are convincing them that communist revolution is their only hope for attaining full “human dignity.” Not only does the ruling class want to hold them down, but even the liberals are racists at heart. This is the New Left’s reason for making seemingly preposterous demands which they know that not even the most guilt-ridden liberals can go along with.

The second aim of current Red activity is the intimidation of all potential opposition. It is here that the fellow travelers play a key role.

They are the priests and ministers who piously sermonize about the equality of “all God’s children”; the schoolteachers who consciously promote the myths that Negroes discovered the North Pole, played leading roles in the American War of Independence, were the first heart surgeons, and helped win the West; the advertising executives who design TV commercials portraying a bright and carefree world of racial integration and consumer luxury; worst of all, the public officials—America’s elected and appointed “leaders”—who cheerfully lead America down the steep, one-way path to national and racial suicide, because that’s where the media support and the big campaign contributions are.

“E-e-qualite-e-e!”

These people are not card-carrying communists—neither are most of the kids who sign their names to anti-Shockley petitions when he is scheduled to speak at their schools—but they very handily do the Reds’ public relations work for them.

A New United Front

The Reds and the neo-liberals have formed a coalition against White America which is far more effective than the old United Front against “fascism” ever was.

The atmosphere of intimidation, the compulsion toward orthodoxy on all racial matters, is growing every day. Even patriots who were not afraid to stand up to the Reds on the issue of “U.S. imperialism” during the Indochina war are now forced to toe the party line by the threat of being labeled “racists.”

Red, Liberal Differences

Although America’s liberals are collaborating fully, albeit sometimes unwillingly, with the Reds on racial matters, the liberals really regard the racial crisis in a different light than do the hard-core elements of the New Left. Whereas the communists want to exacerbate the crisis and exploit it, what the liberals really want is to weasel around it.

WHITE STUDENT TURNS AWAY as a Negro attacks a White girl on the Berkeley campus of the University of California. An elderly White man tries to protect the girl, but liberal brainwashing has unmanned the younger White. He will stand aside and let the White girl be beaten rather than protect her from the Negro and risk the taint of “racism.”

They think they can make the crisis disappear by eliminating its cause, namely, inequality. Ultimately, this boils down to arriving at communist goals nonviolently instead of violently.

The Reds look forward to a wholesale massacre of “ruling class” White males accompanied by a mass rape of their females, after which a domesticated herd of exactly “equal,” coffee colored proletarians will happily enjoy the benefits of a brave-new-world-style welfare state—administered, of course, by commissars of God’s “chosen” race. The liberals would like to bypass the massacre and rape, if possible.

A Prosperous Babylon

American “conservatives,” ranging from Nixon Republicans to Wallaceites, take a position on racial matters not fundamentally different from that of the liberals.

Although, unlike the liberals, they do not want to see the White race become peacefully submerged in a rising tide of colored subhumanity, they wring their hands and say, “Alas, what else can we do?”

Their motivation is not neoliberalism but economic self-interest. The only concern in their shopkeepers’ souls is that their money-grubbing and their self-seeking pursuit of “happiness” not be disrupted.

A peaceful Babylon, a prosperous Babylon, is their desire. Its color does not matter.

Riots Are Bad for Business

So far as they are concerned, the race problem would be solved if Blacks would all work and consume—like the happy Blacks in the integrated TV commercials for Pepsi Cola and Crest—instead of rioting, robbing, raping, and swelling the welfare rolls. The conservative solution to Black unrest is to buy them off, with more concessions, more integration, more “equality.”

But there is another way. It is the White man’s age-old way. That is, it was the White man’s way before materialism destroyed his character and liberalism sapped his will and softened his spine.

That way is to meet the problem head-on and to either overcome it or perish in the attempt.

There is a growing, worldwide conflict between the White race and the non-White peoples who want for themselves what the White man’s genius and energy have created. Very well, let us not look for some way to weasel around that conflict or to convince ourselves that it does not really exist. Let us quit stalling for time and trying to appease our enemies.

Instead, let us oppose them with all the resources at our disposal. Let us place the destiny of our own people ahead of all other considerations, and let us take whatever measures are required to secure that destiny.

---

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/revolt-of-the-submen/

Dr. Pierce Blames Churches for Downfall of Southern Africa

Churches Bent on Suicide

Issue No. 46 of ATTACK! tabloid, 1979:

There is no more striking symptom of the terrible illness of Western civilization than the self-destructive behavior of the Christian churches in recent years. and that behavior is displayed nowhere more starkly than in the attitude and actions of the churches relative to the Black-White conflict in Africa.

It was six years ago that the World Council of Churches, representing 267 different Protestant and Orthodox denominations from many countries, established its Fund to Combat Racism. Each year since then money from the Fund has been awarded to various non-White groups, engaged in "liberation" struggles against "White racists."

In 1974, for example, at the annual convention of the WCC in Geneva, $450,000 was handed out, the bulk of it, $322,000, to Black "liberation" groups in southern Africa. Of this sum, $197,000 was given to various guerrilla factions then waging war against the Portuguese presence in Africa, including $60,000 to the Marxist "Frelimo" group in Mozambique. Another $30,000 went to two Black terrorist groups in Rhodesia.

Black gratitude for this support has been less than overwhelming. Now that the Frilimo terrorists have driven the Portuguese from Mozambique and their leader, Black Marxist Samora Machel, has become dictator, Christian missionaries in Mozambique are being rounded up and put into forced-labor camps. Diplomatic sources in Maputo (formerly Lourenco Marques, the capitol of Mozambique) say that as many as 150 missionaries and church workers are also being held without formal charges in the central prison there and in a jail in the port city of Beira.

Mission schools and churches have been nationalized by the communist government of Mozambique and converted to stables and warehouses. There are many reports of imprisoned priests being tortured and executed.

Nor is the situation in Mozambique an exception to the rule. Similar treatment has been dealt out to the Christian Churches and their representatives in Uganda, the Congo, and other African countries which have recently gained their independence with church help. The churches can expect the same fate shortly in newly "liberated" Angola.

And yet the churches' frenzy for self-destruction continues. Their commitment to, and support for, anti-White terrorists in Africa and elsewhere is stronger than ever. 

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

Our principle concern must be to see that [Christianity] 

does not succeed in pulling the race down with it. 

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

Nor is this activity limited to the World Council of Churches. The Roman Catholic Church, anxious not to seem less anti-racist than its Protestant competitors, has also taken an activist role. Roman Catholic Bishop Donal Lamont, of Umtali, Rhodesia, has spent more time in recent years acting as a mouthpiece for Black terrorist groups than he has preaching the gospels to his White parishioners. One of Bishop Lamont's pet projects is the repeal of the Byrd Amendment, which allows Rhodesian chromium ore to be imported into the United States.

As might have been expected, there has been a certain amount of protest from individual White Christians, who have objected to the money they drop in the collection plate each Sunday being used to buy weapons to kill White Rhodesian and Portuguese  farmers. In the case of the World Council of Churches the lame excuse has been offered that their grants are intended for "humanitarian" purposes only: medical supplies and social services, but not weapons.

In other statements, however, WCC leaders have left little doubt that they have no real objections to terrorist activities -- as long as the terrorists are Black and their victims are White. After its meeting in Uppsala, Sweden, in 1968, the WCC's official report of the proceedings contained the statement: "Some of us hold that Christians may well participate in the violent struggle for liberation, if there appears to be no other way left. Others of us would argue that as Christians we are committed to non-violence under all circumstances. Despite the difference of opinion, we are agreed that as Christians we cannot condemn liberation movements which take recourse to violence as last resort against oppressive systems."

 

 

Apartheid: during healthier times in southern Africa 

there were separate facilities for Whites and Blacks

The commitment of the member churches of the WCC and of their Catholic counterparts goes far beyond their financing Black guerrillas in Africa and their terrorism against Whites. For example, the Christian churches have been in the forefront of efforts in the republic of South Africa to undermine racial separation there.

White priests, ministers, bishops, and deacons have defied the laws against racially mixed public assemblies by holding integrated worship services. They have filed lawsuits against the government and issued inflammatory statements to the press. And, most important, they have tirelessly agitated directly among the Blacks, urging them to rebel.

It almost seems the Christian churches in general, both inside and outside the WCC, are now giving expression to a deeply ingrained death-wish. They are, as a whole, betraying the race which has nurtured them and are baring their throats to alien races who have neither understanding nor sympathy to Christian doctrines.

There has been, of course, a great deal of subversion of the Christian religious community in the last century. Jewish influence has spread through both the Catholic and Protestant churches, resulting in radical changes in church doctrines. Seminarians are exposed to this influence and later transmit it to their congregations when they become priests.

But deliberate subversion appears to account for only part of the problem. There is also a large element of natural decadence present. This decadence is showing up not only in the Christian churches in America and Europe and in the "progressive" Catholic and Protestant denominations of southern Africa, with their largely English-speaking members and their substantial Marrano contingents, but also in the much more conservative and fundamentalist Protestant churches in southern Africa.

 

Daniel Francois Milan, Sr.: like father, not like son

The Dutch Reformed churches, composed of three Calvinist sects which represent most of southern Africa's Afrikaans-speaking Whites and which were formerly considered bastions of resistance to the forces of racial suicide, are showing definite symptoms of the same disease afflicting other Christian churches. One prominent Dutch Reformed minister, the Reverend D. F. Milan, has recently joined the priestly chorus in South Africa calling for Black "equality." He is the son of the former Nationalist Party leader, Daniel F. Milan, whose name is most closely associated with the apartheid system.

At the rate the churches are headed downhill now, it will be surprising if Christianity survives its second millennium as a significant force in the life of the West. Our principle concern must be to see that it does not succeed in pulling the race down with it.

Dr. Pierce on the Meaning and Importance of Loyalty

Commentary by Dr. Pierce from National Alliance Bulletin, 1997:

The Meaning of Loyalty

An often made comment by students of human behavior is that soldiers in combat do not fight for their general or their country or their god or any other impersonal entity; they fight for each other, for those with whom they are in immediate, daily contact.  This comment certainly is correct for most, though not all, soldiers.  Their mental horizon, normally very limited, becomes even smaller in the face of death.  All abstract principles fall away, and only the most primative instincts remain.   When fear of imminent death looms large, all impersonal loyalties lose their meaning, and the individual is controlled only by his bond to his immediate fellows in the same situation.  He may risk his life to protect one of his fellows, but not to comply with an order from headquarters.  He would rather take a bullet in the gut than be seen as a coward or a shirker by those immediately around him, but he doesn’t really care what headquarters thinks.

All successful armies are organized with this facet of human nature in mind.  The structure of the army must be such that headquarters can count on the individual soldier doing what headquarters wants him to do rather than what he is inclined to do by his instincts.  That is accomplished by training and by having a well designed chain of command.  The army’s noncoms are a cut above the rank and file; they have somewhat more distant horizons.  They are close enough to the men in their squad or platoon to bond with them and demand loyalty from them, but they also are able to identify their interests with those of the lieutenant and the captain.  And the officers must be a cut above the noncomes, with even more distant horizons.  And so it goes, all the way up to headquarters.

This behavior undoubtedly is something we have inherited from our ancestors who belonged to hunting bands a million years ago.  Success and survival depended on a strong bonding among the dozen or so members of the band.  Because this behavior is natural, we cannot deplore it – but, like any army, we must understand it and take it into account in planning for any objective bigger than bringing down the next wooly mammoth we encounter.

We don’t have some of the advantages that an army has.  Our members are much more widely dispersed, and our organization is much less developed than any army’s, with a much more tenuous chain of command: relatively few of our members out in foxholes have any noncom to whom they can bond.  Furthermore, we cannot throw people in the brig or put them up against a wall when they don’t behave the way I want them to.

We have to make up for these disadvantages by having members with somewhat broader horizons than those of the average citizen.  We need members with at least the expanded sinse of loyalty of a noncom.  Until we have developed a structure much more like that of an army, we need to be beware of having too many members whose loyalties are limited to their drinking buddies.

This expanded sense of loyalty is mentioned on page 11 of our Membership Handbook*, and it would behoove every member to re-read that page now.  This is not merely a theoretical matter; it is something which affects us whenever we engage in any activity with other members, and every day we can see the destructive consequences of ignoring it.

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

*"[A] member is expected to put his loyalty to the Alliance above 

any assumed obligations to another individual member..."

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

The only reason that the Alliance has survived and continued to grow while other organizations have self-destructed is that we do have members who are a cut above the average White person:  more intelligent, better disciplined, more racially conscious, and with a more impersonal sense of loyalty.  But this is true only on the average.  Inevitably we also recruit people lacking in maturity, responsibility, self-discipline, and the ability to be loyal to the Alliance and the purpose which it serves.  We see this whenever a member observes some destructive behavior on the part of a fellow member which is of such a serious nature that I or someone else in the National Office needs to know about it, but the member observing this behavior doesn’t tell me about it because he doesn’t want to “rat on a buddy.”  He places his loyalty to the misbehaving member with whom he is in immediate, personal contact above his loyalty to the distant and impersonal Alliance.  We simply cannot afford very much of that, because we are not a neighborhood gang, for which such a limited concept of loyalty might be appropriate.

I have been prompted to bring this subject up now, because I recently was obliged to expel several members from the Alliance whose very limited sense of loyalty had led them to engage in activity harmful to the Alliance.  We are a diverse organization, with many types of people among our members.  But one thing every member must have if he is to remain with us is a sense of loyalty to the National Alliance and the idea served by the National Alliance which is above his loyalty to any other entity, including his “buddies.”

W.L.P.

Do right, and fear no one!

This piece was originally published in 1993 by Dr. Pierce to his Alliance members as chapter 7 in the National Alliance Membership Handbook: 

Moral Considerations

People join the National Alliance for various reasons, and people also have various reasons for not joining us.

Some people react to various irritants: they're angry at the government's insistence that homosexuals be tolerated, or they are alarmed by the growing flood of non-White immigrants swamping America. Others join because the Alliance is a symbol of normalcy, sanity and security in a world gone mad: they feel isolated and afraid as their old, familiar world crumbles under the impact of the New World Order, and they reach out to us as to a life preserver.

Some people avoid joining us because the odds for our success don't look good to them now: no point in ending up on the winning side's blacklist, they think. Others stay away because they have some quibble with our program or our ideology: they want us to promise that we'll never use violence, no matter what; or they aver that they agree with most of what we stand for, but we spoil everything by saying nice things about Adolf Hitler sometimes or by refusing to recognize that there are some "good" Blacks and some "decent" Jews.

We spend much time and energy talking about all of these things. We use the immigration problem and the government's favoritism toward homosexuals as arguments to persuade those with a reactionary streak to join us. We try to convince the calculating, I've-got-to-look-out-for-number-one types that the odds will change. We assure the quibblers that we are not as far beyond the pale of social acceptability as they fear: that we will only use violence when conditions compel us, and that we are fully aware of Hitler's lack of popularity among mainstream Americans. When we're faced with the problem of overcoming prospective members' prejudices and fears, when we're trying hard to get a reluctant radio station to carry American Dissident Voices, when we have to do business with fools or bigots to accomplish a necessary task, we must be practical. We must be reasonable. We must plan and act with care and skill. We often must tailor our message for particular audiences. Occasionally we find it prudent to pull our punches. We are, after all, working in the real world with real people and all their imperfections.

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

"[We]e are driven by a moral compulsion, by the deep-seated 

conviction that a man ought to do what he knows to be right, 

regardless of every other consideration." 

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

Sometimes, though, it's helpful to stand back a bit from the everyday work of infrastructure building and the problems of propaganda and recruiting, to put aside all our calculations and rationalizations, and to look at what we're doing from a higher observation point. It's important to remind ourselves that our most basic reason for being in the Alliance and doing the Alliance's work is that it's the right thing to do. Ultimately, it's not any ideological quibble that motivates us: we are driven by a moral compulsion, by the deep-seated conviction that a man ought to do what he knows to be right, regardless of every other consideration. And we know, with every fiber of our being, that it is right to fight for the survival of our people and for a more progressive world in which ever greater beauty, knowledge, strength, wisdom, and order are the common goals of our race.

No man, of course, is strong enough or wise enough to do the right thing, to make the right choice, every single time the possibility arises, every day of his life. We all yield to the temptation occasionally to tell an unnecessary lie or to do something petty, cruel, inexcusably selfish, or dishonorable. Were it otherwise we would not be human. What's important for us imperfect men and women is to have the moral sense to know when we haven't done the right thing, the moral sense to urge us to do better the next time: more important, the moral sense to know that, even though we sometimes make mistakes in the day-to-day conduct of our lives, we must not make a mistake when faced with the really big, once-in-a-lifetime moral choices, the choices for which there is no next time.

The biggest of these choices is whether we will choose the path of righteousness as our path in life and tread it as best we can for as long as we live, or whether we will spend all our lives making excuses and waiting until a more opportune time to choose the right path, meanwhile continuing to tread in the mire of acceptability and conventionality. This is not the same choice as that between doing right and willfully abandoning ourselves to evil. We can see all around us people who have made the latter choice: the politicians, the priests and ministers, the ambitious lawyer-bureaucrats, the Gentile newspaper reporters and scriptwriters and television commentators, all posturing and prating and grinning up their sleeves. They are people who consciously and deliberately have chosen the path of treason, the path of collaboration with the enemies of our race, because collaboration seems to be prospering in this era. We often feel the special hatred which these people bear for us, a hatred made hotter because we are reminders to them of their own immorality.

And it is not a choice made -- or even faced -- by the great mass of people who lack a moral sense altogether, or in whom it is so weak that it is overridden almost completely by external forces. This is the herd, the mob, the democratic electorate, the eternal consumers of spectator sports, from the circuses of the ancient Caesars to the latest World Series or presidential election. They are the soulless ones, those who really believe that whatever is fashionable is right.

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

 "[W]e know, with every fiber of our being, that it is 

right to fight for the survival of our people..." 

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

When heretics were being burned four centuries ago, they were among the onlookers, munching snacks and cheering and sweating and happily jostling one another. When there were "freedom marches" [six] decades ago, they were there again, singing "We Shall Overcome" and looking virtuous for the cameras. When rock became fashionable they rocked, and when rap became fashionable they rapped, with never a thought for the meaning of what they were doing.

When they began seeing their favorite television-serial actors and actresses with Black paramours, the females among them jumped up from the couch and ran out to find a Black boyfriend, while the males among them convinced themselves that they approved.

When a war is smiled on by the faces on their television screens the soulless ones are bloodthirsty jingoists, and when a war is frowned on they are pacifists, and in neither case do they ask whether or not it serves a higher purpose. 

Capable of helping to build a great civilization when they have moral leadership, they tear it down with equal enthusiasm when their leaders are immoral. They themselves, however, are neither moral nor immoral and, therefore, are faced with no moral choices.

No, the distinction we make here is not between ourselves and the willfully evil few or the mindlessly fashionable many. It is between us and those who know the difference between right and wrong but who, nevertheless, procrastinate and quibble and avoid making a choice, whether from lack of courage, excess of caution, or some other reason.

There certainly are those who agree with us but aren't in the Alliance because they lack the courage of their convictions. And there are those whose convictions simply lack intensity: for them doing the right thing remains only a conviction and has not become a compulsion.

It is possible, of course, for people to be moral in more than one way. There are moral people who interpret the facts of the world differently than we do. Most of these people are operating on faulty information, however: a belief in the supernatural is their most common fault. 

The essence of the matter is this: no moral White man or woman who understands what is happening and has a firm grip on reality (that is, who is not anticipating divine intervention) can collaborate willingly in the ongoing destruction of our race and our civilization. And to participate is to collaborate. Any practicing physician, public school teacher, policeman, or merchant; any construction worker, truck driver, or office receptionist; any soldier, engineer, or commercial farmer -- in general, anyone who sells his skills or his labor or provides goods or services and thereby helps to keep the wheels of the present society turning, and who takes no compensatory action -- is collaborating in the destruction of his own people.

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

"A belief in the supernatural is [the] most common 

fault [of otherwise] moral people who interpret the 

facts of the world differently than we do."

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

What a terrible dilemma this is for everyone who understands it but is too timid or too indecisive to do anything about it! Some simply try to avoid thinking too much about their moral failure. Others wriggle and squirm and try in various ways to lessen their guilt: they talk against the race-destroying System they serve when no one is listening who might report their insubordination, or they fool themselves into believing that they are participating in the mainstream economy in such a way that it doesn't really amount to collaboration and might even be considered sabotage, or they endlessly embellish a fantasy-plan they have for doing something moral ''when the time becomes ripe."

How fortunate are we in the Alliance! We few, we happy few, almost alone among the tens of millions of our fellow White men and women, can morally justify our existence! We, almost alone among those with a moral sense, can go to bed at night with an easy conscience, because we know we are doing the right thing. Even if we participate in the mainstream economy by day, we are in fact, not in fantasy, turning that participation against the enemies of our people by using the resources or the situation it provides us to build the Alliance: we are recruiting from the people around us in the workplace and we are supporting the work of the National Office.

We understand, of course, that being right is not enough. Too often in our past evil has triumphed and trampled right underfoot, even as it does now. Eventually we must not only be right, but we must have the strongest battalions. Being right, however, does give us an enormous advantage in the work of building our battalions. Ultimately the moral strength of those battalions will be as important as their physical strength. And the knowledge, on the part of each member, that he is doing the right thing makes him a stronger member now. It gives him an edge over the opponent who is consciously wrong, just as it does over the opponent who has no morality.

For our morality to give us strength, however, we must be aware of it; we must understand that we are right and why we are right. We must burn a sense of rightness into our consciousness, so that we never forget it. Then we can truly have as our motto: Do right, and fear no one.

Dr. Pierce: Our Alliance Must Have a Spiritual Basis

The following is a Cosmothest lecture that Dr. Pierce gave on March 27, 1977. It is reprinted from the National Alliance BULLETIN: 
A Program for a New America 
By Dr. William L. Pierce

The topic I announced for tonight is a little misleading. I said I intended to talk about “A Program for a New America,” but a more accurate title would be “Why We Haven’t Yet Announced a Program for a New America.” That is apparently a subject which is on the minds of a great many people. When I talk to a new person who has recently read an ATTACK!  for the first time, the questions he asks tend to be of the sort: “What do you plan to do with the Blacks?” or “How do you propose to solve the Jewish problem?” or “Do you intend to do away with the income tax?”

And many of our own people, who have been reading Alliance publications for quite a while, ask similar questions. MS asked me several questions of this sort a few days ago and TO was pressing me for a program statement on the Jewish problem about two weeks ago. The answer I gave both M and T was essentially this: We don’t have any plan for dealing with the Blacks We don’t have a proposed solution for the Jewish problem.

I have the feeling that neither of them was completely satisfied with this answer, and since the questions were important ones which are also in many other people’s minds, and since I have actually given quite a bit of thought to my apparently trivial answer, I think it may be worth while elaborating on it, so you can understand just why that is the only correct answer at this time.

If the National Alliance were a political party; if theCosmotheist Community were a political party: if I or M or T were running for a seat in the U.S. Senate -- then, of course, we would have to have a program, and we would be obliged to have specific answers to all sorts of questions, not only questions about how we propose to deal with the Blacks and the Jews and income taxes, but about many, many other things also: about wages and prices, about the armed forces, about public transportation, about pollution and energy and so on.

But neither the Alliance nor our Cosmotheist Community is a political party, and I am not and, so far as I know, neither M nor T is a candidate for the Senate, and so we are not anticipating being in a position next month or next year where we will have to introduce legislation or take other concrete actions relating to the Jewish problem or taxes or anything else. So we do not have to have a program, with specific proposals for dealing with these things.

On the other hand, we could have a program, even though we are not obliged to. Anyone can sit down and daydream about what he would do if he became king tomorrow And, in fact, that seems to be what most small radical groups, on both the left and the right, spend most of their time doing. And nothing sounds sillier that a blustering 15-point ultimatum from a 10-member group of leftist revolutionaries or an announcement by a right-wing “party” consisting of five members and a mimeograph machine that they intend to send the Blacks back to Africa or to do anything else, when they clearly have neither the power to carry out their program nor even the faintest prospect of attaining that power. All they do by announcing a program is accentuate their own impotence. One immediately recognizes them for what they are: children who lack the maturity for coming to grips with the real world and who choose instead to live in their own fantasy world.

Let me back up for a moment. Everyone daydreams occasionally. I can well imagine that thousands of spiritually healthy men in this country have occasionally caught themselves fantasizing, as I have, about being trapped in an elevator for an hour with Henry Kissinger as the only other passenger--and an ice-pick. But unless we actually intend to put ice-picks up our sleeves and go looking for Mr. Kissinger, right now, it is best to put such fantasies out of our minds and think instead about the things we actually do intend to do. Fantasizing is only bad when it begins to serve as substitute for real planning. And the announcement by a political group of detailed proposals for remaking the world is only bad when it serves as a substitute for actually tackling problems of a somewhat smaller magnitude -- a magnitude that the group is actually capable of handling or has reasonable prospects of soon being able to handle. There is a name for the habit of indulging oneself in make-believe as a substitute for the real thing, and we want no part of it.

Now, we are still a small group, we are not a political party, and there’s not much chance one of us could be elected to the White House or the Senate in the next few years. But we might win a seat on a local school board, if we put up some candidates. Suppose we did. What about announcing a program then?

Well, if we were serious about wanting to win a school-board election, instead of merely using the election campaign as a forum for attracting attention and expressing our views, we would have an important decision to make; to tell the truth or not to tell the truth. That is, we could, on the one hand, run on a platform consisting o promised to oppose forced school busing -- if that were a threat in a particular school district -- and to make the schools safe by instituting a policy of permanently expelling anyone caught shaking down another student for his lunch money or assaulting a teacher. We might even go so far as to promise to overhaul the school curricula, weeding out the phony-history courses dealing with the imaginary gassing of six million Jews and the equally imaginary Black-roots topics. Such a platform would invite the wrath of all the liberals and the minority elements in the district -- including, of course, the media. Nevertheless, there are still enough White people with good instincts left in the population so that such a platform might not frighten them too much. One might conceivably win with such a platform and might not frighten them too much. One might conceivably win with such a platform, although it is certain not likely, considering the hullabaloo the liberals and the Jews and the Blacks would raise at the very prospect of having such a “racist,” such a “bigot,” such an “anti-Semite” on the school board.

On the other had, one could tell the whole truth to the public -- one could have an election platform which let it all hang out, so to speak. One could explain that it is not busing which is wrong, nor hooliganism by animalistic Black students, but racial integration itself. One could explain that the problem with what the kids are being taught in school today is not that the textbooks contain a few lies about the last war and about the supposed great contributions of the Black man to Western civilization, but that the entire basis of our educational system is rotten, that the entire American educational philosophy is wrong. And one could give promises to work to remove all non-Whites for the local schools, if elected, and to purge every Jewish and other non-Western influence form faculties and curricula -- promises which, quite obviously, one could not effectively keep, because one would bring all the power of the Federal police state down on one’s head if one tried.

Needless to say, considering the brainwashed conditions of the American electorate, the chances of winning a school-board election with such a platform are quite a bit less than with the first platform. And that is true even though one might very will run into less opposition form the media and the liberal establishment with the second platform, because then one could be dismissed as such an extremist, such a nut, that there was no significant danger of one’s winning. One’s candidacy would just be one of those freaky things we have to tolerate in a democracy, like the candidate the Prohibition Party puts up for the Presidency every four years. He receives very few votes, even from the tee-totalers, because they see no point in wasting their votes on a man who would not be allowed to carry out his program, even if he won.

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

[Lying and compromising] are inherent, 

they are inescapable, in any democracy.

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

To recapitulate: The choice, if we put up a man or a woman for a school board seat, would be this: either to announce a program, a platform, full of compromises and evasions and half-truths -- even to lie outright about our intentions, if questioned too sharply by the press: or to tell the whole truth, and thereby turn the campaign into an exercise in futility.

Now, you might very well ask at this point, “So what’s the matter with lying and compromising, considering the absolute necessity of what we’re trying to do? After all, all’s fair in war. And besides, lying and compromising are obviously what it takes to win elections under the present System -- in fact, they are inherent, they are inescapable, in any democracy. The average person, the average voter, is never capable of dealing with the truth when it is unpleasant or calls for self-discipline.” That’s what you might say.

Well, the trouble with lying and compromising is that we would not survive such tactics, in my opinion. I do not believe that any radical group, any fundamentalist group, can survive its own lies, at this stage of development. It is simply incorrect to believe that one can adopt such tactics without paying a heavy price. That is because we depend almost completely now upon true believers for everything we are doing. We receive economic and moral support, of course, from a large number of people who agree, to a greater or lesser extent, with the ideas expressed in ATTACK!, but who do not really understand our basic motivation -- and probably never will. Their thoughts and attitudes are too strongly locked into conventional patterns. But the active core of our movement consists of people who not only understand but are totally committed to the basic spiritual values form which all the ideas in ATTACK! and everything we talk about in these meetings are derived. Those are the values which are given to us by our Truth, by our Affirmation, which we recite together at the beginning of this meeting.

For the great majority of the people who send us five dollars a year for an ATTACK! subscription, it may be sufficient that we are opposed to school busing and to the Jewish domination of the news and entertainment media. But for the people who give up their careers, who expose their families to hardships, who work long hours when others are relaxing, who, in fact, may be called to put their lives on the line for the sake of what we are doing, these superficial things are not sufficient. Their commitment is rooted in the fundamentals. And they are not willing to compromise those fundamentals.

As our community grows, we expect there to come a time when we are large enough that we can diversify our efforts by setting up subsidiary organizations or front organizations which will make whatever compromises are necessary to accomplish specific, limited, political tasks -- without our central community compromising the values on which it is founded.

But that time has not yet come, and every new step forward we take now requires the winning of new true believers to our cause, people who are attracted only by the beacon of eternal Truth and not merely by a desire to find quick and superficial solutions to a few acute social or economic or racial problems, They are not, in other words, the kind of people who are continually jumping on bandwagons and the off again -- Goldwater bandwagons, Wallace bandwagons, Reagan bandwagons -- but people who make a lifetime commitment to a single Purpose. Those are the people whose hearts and minds we must win now, and so we must not lie, and we must not compromise.

Now, up to this point, I’ve given you two reasons why we haven’t announced a specific, detailed program, or platform, for solving America’s current problems and building a new and better America. The first reason is simply that we don’t want to sound foolish by announcing a lot of plans that we have no apparent prospect for being able to carry out. The second reason is that we are unwilling to say things which we do not believe for the sake of a large public acceptance, because we need those men and women who are attracted by our pure and unadulterated Truth far more than we need a larger public acceptance.

Does that mean, then, that our program is limited to the broad and general goals described on page seven of each issue of ATTACK! and that we have no idea about specifics? In ATTACK! we say:

Our members are working to build a revolutionary new order of things in American life--a new order based on natural laws.

We want to develop in America a healthy cultural and racial approach to politics reflecting an understanding of authority, discipline, duty, and honor.

We want to achieve an organic society which will not only protect and perpetuate the great, traditional values of Western civilization but will purify the Western world of the degeneracy of communism and liberalism.

We want to secure for our people control over our own destiny by eliminating from the nerve centers of our society every anti-American and anti-Western influence.

We want to safeguard our racial identity by putting an end to the present insanity of enforced racial integration, which is threatening all involved with social chaos, cultural dissolution, and racial death.

We want to foster among our people, though the recapture of our information media and our educational system, a new spiritual outlook: the outlook of free men living and working in harmony with Nature.

We want to make possible for our people a new way of live, a meaningful and satisfying way of life as opposed to the present rat race in which every man and every woman exists simply as an exploitable economic unit.

We want our country, one day to have a sane policy toward the other nations of the world, in place of the self-destructive idiocy which presently passes for American foreign policy. We need a policy based on a recognition that our interests are bound up with those of the other peoples having our common racial-cultural heritage, whether in Canada, Europe, southern Africa, Australia, or elsewhere, and that other races must develop in accord with their own distinct racial-cultural imperatives -- without help or hindrance from us except where such development poses a distinct threat to our own security.

You see, that program gives no specifics. It says, for example, that we want an end to racial integration, but it doesn’t say how we are going to achieve that goal. It doesn’t say what we have in mind for the 30 to 40 million non-Whites in this country, especially if they decide they want to stay integrated. And it doesn’t say how we intend to recapture our information media and our educational system. It doesn’t answer many questions which naturally arise about our intentions. It only says, in very general terms, what we want, but it doesn’t say how or when, and it doesn’t give details. Does that mean that we don’t have a more complete program?

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

[W]e are unwilling to say things which we do not believe 

for the sake of a large public acceptance

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

Not exactly. We have thought about specifics, and we do have a number of ideas along particular lines relating to these general goals. But we haven’t published them--or a watered-down and compromised version of them -- and we don’t intend to, for the two reason already mentioned and also for an even more fundamental reason, which I’ll tell you about in a moment. But first let me get a few more preliminaries out of the way.

In the first place, the political, social, and racial goals I just read are not going to be achieved tomorrow -- or next year. Any really detailed plan of action requires a knowledge of the circumstances, of the conditions, which will exist when that plan is implemented. We known that our goals must be achieved, but we cannot say when, and we have no way of knowing under what conditions. I don’t think it is very profitable for us to speculate publicly about what conditions will be like in this country 10 or 20 or 30 years or more from now and then to announce detailed plans based on such speculations. In fact, all we can do, even in private, is tentatively explore various contingencies which might arise, try to estimate the various probabilities, and then think about what we should do now to be able to deal effectively with the broadest range of likely future developments.

In the second place, even if we knew the circumstances ahead and could make a detailed program now, it is not likely that it would be a program we could publish. I see a future for the American people -- for White people everywhere -- which is very, very grim. I see a general public which in the future will be even less disciplined, even more decadent and spiritually ill than now, and I see some extraordinarily painful measures being required to restore our people to moral and spiritual health.

I see a future which is red with blood because of the accumulated foolishness of decades, and I hardly think this grim picture is one which the public today wants to look at, nor do I think it will help our cause to try to force them to look at it or at a political program based on it. They would reject it. They do not have sufficient understanding. They do not have the spiritual basis required to understand and accept it.

And that brings us to the essence of the reason for not publishing, at this time, a political program more detailed than the general statement of goals which appears in ATTACK! Our Purpose, after all, is not to elect a conservative Congress or to repeal the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, so that we can return to “business as usual.” It is the Creator’s Purpose; it is to begin ascending once again the never-ending Path of Life which leads from man to superman and beyond, the Path which carries our race, and what it will become, through higher and higher levels of consciousness toward the total and perfect Self-realization of the Creator.

That is our Purpose, the Purpose for which our program must be designed. It is a program which can, therefore, be only partly political in the ordinary sense and is, in fact, more spiritual than political. And it is utterly wrong to believe that we can achieve our political goals, the political portion of our program, before we have implemented our spiritual program.

That is the fundamental mistake of virtually all the right-wing parties and groups today, whether they are running candidates for office or not. They seem to believe that they can radically transform the political, social, and racial scenes without a spiritual transformation, a spiritual reawakening, of our people first. It cannot be done.

We have, I am afraid, a natural tendency, a natural weakness, which leads us to this mistake. It is the tendency to place all or most of the blame for what ails us on others instead of on ourselves. It is very easy to blame the Blacks for the fact that our cities have become filthy, crime-infested jungles and our schools combat zones where very little is learned. And it is very easy to blame the Jews too, not only for allowing the Blacks to do what they do, but for the corruption of our economy and the undermining of our national defense.

But it is a fact that when this country was formed we had no Black problem and no Jewish problem. We ourselves, our own people, were in total and complete control of our destiny, and everything that has happened to us had happened, in a sense, with our own consent.

We certainly cannot say that what the Blacks have done to our cities and to our schools was done by sneaking up on us and pulling off some sort of coup. They have done it gradually, over a period of more that a hundred years, and we failed to stop it. We failed to act even before the Jews had captured our news and entertainment media and began injecting their spiritual poison into us. Just as with the Blacks, we had every opportunity to halt what the Jews were doing, but we did not.

And the reason we did not is essentially a spiritual reason. We allowed ourselves to fall prey to these alien influences because we did not have a spiritual basis for resisting them. We did not have the proper values, the proper priorities, the proper standards, the proper attitudes and goals; we did not have the proper understanding, the proper degree of consciousness of our identity and our mission. Our lives, individually and collectively, were not committed to the One True Purpose. And until we have cured that situation, until we have cured our own inner sickness, we cannot hope to deal successfully with our external enemies.

Now, this cure, this healing of ourselves, is much, more than a matter of education, much more than merely getting the facts to the public about race and about what the Jews are doing. It is primarily a matter of bringing about the inner reorientation that will give the public the desire and the will to act on those facts. This is something which I have talked about before -- it is largely the subject of our Introductory Meeting Tape -- and I will not repeat myself on that score tonight, except to recapitulate our reason for our program being of the nature that it is.

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

We allowed ourselves to fall prey to these alien influences because we did not have a spiritual basis for resisting them.

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

Other groups -- third parties and fourth parties and what have you -- will continue issuing political programs and running people for office. And that is fine. We certainly have no complaint about that. Such activity at least calls public attention to certain problems and serves an educational purpose, although a quite limited one.

But we are fundamentally different form these other groups, and we will remain different. We have stated some, though not all, of our general goals. But our program is not one of working directly through ordinary -- or extraordinary -- political processes to achieve these goals. We understand that they cannot be achieved by themselves, without first laying a proper spiritual basis for them. Therefore, our program is directed almost entirely toward the accomplishment of this spiritual prerequisite for our political goals. Our program is concerned now, and will be concerned for the foreseeable future, with awakening a consciousness of identity and mission in an elite minority of our people, a minority in whom the Divine Spark, the Universal Urge, the Creator’s immanent Self-consciousness, burns brighter than it does in the rest, and when welding this awakened elite into a growing community of blood and consciousness, a spiritual community primarily rather than a political one, a community imbued with an understanding of our Truth and unconditionally dedicated to our Purpose, which is the Creator’s Purpose.

When this community is strong enough so that it can begin realistically to contemplate the implementation of our political goals in the larger society -- that is, when we have crossed the second threshold of which I spoke to you some weeks ago -- then, and only then, will we formulate and announce a full and detailed political program.

And I might make one final observation. I said our spiritual program is a prerequisite for our political program, but it is not just a prerequisite, not merely a prerequisite. It stands on its own. In fact, if I had to say which program is of more fundamental importance, I would immediately say it is our spiritual program.

If, by some miracle, we could carry out our political program directly, without a general spiritual reorientation fist, I would have no faith in the results. They would not last. But as long as our community survives, as long as there are at least one man and one woman of our race left who are committed to our Truth and able to raise their children and pass that Truth on to them, then even if this country were obliterated utterly, even if Western civilization were obliterated utterly, I would still have confidence in the future and in the eventual implementation of a new version of our political program, no matter how long that might take.