Out of the Darkness

American Dissident Voices broadcast of July 31, 2004:

Out of the Darkness

by Dr. William L. Pierce
introduced by Kevin Alfred Strom

As I record this week's broadcast, it has been two years since the untimely death of the founding chairman of the National Alliance, my friend and certainly one of the profoundest thinkers of the 20th century, William L. Pierce.
 
Dr. Pierce told me that his greatest goal in life was to build the Alliance into a vehicle for the survival and advancement of our people that would transcend his own leadership, that would endure beyond his physical life and beyond the lifetimes of any of its leaders.
 
There were times that Dr. Pierce agonized over whether the Alliance would survive at all, and even more times when he felt almost alone, certain that without him to keep pushing forward, the organization and the ideas it embodies would disappear and be forgotten. In the early 1980s, Dr. Pierce instituted several dramatic changes in the Alliance. The blustery street-revolutionary rhetoric of the tabloid newspaper was superseded by the equally radical but more intellectually rigorous articles in the new National Vanguard magazine. The issue-oriented approach of the past was de-emphasized and the all-encompassing racial-biological worldview that was the basis of our ideas was brought to the fore. Attracting the masses was abandoned in favor of attracting a high-quality elite.
 
On today's broadcast, I'm going to remember Dr. Pierce by letting you hear his own words on these very subjects. Offered here to honor the man and to disseminate his prescient words, and never before heard by any but the Alliance members and participants at the Alliance's General Convention in 1983, this is Dr. Pierce's banquet address -- 'Out of the Darkness.' 

Listen to this inspirational Cosmotheist sermon by Dr. Pierce here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI07LkGOu9c#t=19

* * * 

Two thousand years ago the poet Ovid wrote that night is a sadder time than day. I know that's always been true for me. When discouraging thoughts come, it's usually at night.
 
Actually, I'm pretty cheerful most of the time. But it used to be that, occasionally, when I was working alone in the National Office late at night, a black thought would come into my mind -- always the same thought. It was that there's not enough time to do what I must do. It was that something will happen to me before the Alliance is strong enough to survive and continue growing without me.
 
Then a feeling of desperation would come over me and I would have to fight off an almost overpowering urge to do whatever I could to speed things up -- to go back to the quick and dirty methods that I had tried in past years. Now, I didn't yield to that urge because I had already found out the hard way that the quick and dirty methods don't yield lasting results. I knew that we had only one shot at winning this war we're in, and it has to be a good shot. We can't miss. We can't build something that is flimsy or false. We have to do it exactly right, or it won't work. But doing it right sometimes seems painfully slow. And it would be futile, self-defeating, if in my care to do it right I didn't get enough of it done so that others could carry on before I was overtaken by disease, or by an accident, or even by an assassin.
 
Now, in a sense, this black thought which used to creep up on me late at night, was the thought of death, the fear of death. We're all mortal. We all know that we have to die -- though no one wants to. The way we've dealt with this fear of death in the past has been to identify ourselves with something immortal, to think of ourselves as part of something in which we can continue to live after our bodies are gone. Patriots have identified themselves with their countries -- often so strongly that they were almost eager to die in order to advance the interests of their fatherland: the land of their forefathers. It was easier to be patriotic, of course, when our country still belonged to us, when we were able to associate a particular village, or farmstead, with our ancestors for several generations back; when the graves of our fathers, and grandfathers, and great great great grandfathers, were around us -- and so were their works: the fields that they had cleared, the buildings that they had built, the trophies they gathered in their lifetimes, the records they left behind them. We could easily fit ourselves into the pattern of generations and centuries, and be content in the knowledge that our own works, and trophies, and records, would also be preserved, and would become part of the lives of our descendents. We would fight anyone who threatened that pattern. We would die in order to preserve it, so that we wouldn't be forgotten, so that we would always have a little niche in the memory of all the generations which were to come.
 
Today the whole pattern has been smashed to bits and ground into the mud. We've lost our roots, our sense of belonging, our connection with the past and with the future. We can't count on being remembered. In fact, if current trends continue for a few more years, and Martin Luther King's dream of "full equality" is realized then our grandchildren won't even know who their fathers are, much less their grandfathers. So patriotism provides little comfort for mortals these days.
 
And it's no wonder that many people are searching for something else, besides their countries, to identify with. For me that something has long been the whole universe. My life is part of its life and I know that the larger life of the evolving universe will go on no matter what. That's my religion, or part of it. But it's a rather impersonal religion, and on dark, lonely nights at the office, it does not by itself provide enough comfort to keep dark moods away. There is in all of us, I believe, a need for a more personal identification with something immortal. We need more than merely the knowledge that each of us is a momentarily glowing spark of individual consciousness in a conscious cosmos -- a cosmos which, even as its overall brightness grows, witnesses the winking on and then out again of billions of individual sparks.
 
We need, in addition to that, the knowledge that we as individuals make a difference. We need the knowledge that we can make a mark on the world through our own efforts, and that the mark we make will last. We need to know that our personal contribution to the life of the universe will be remembered after we are gone -- that others will add to it and help it grow -- so that ten generations from now, or even a hundred generations, the record will still be there. There will be someone then who will be able to say: Back during the great struggle, ages ago, when the race nearly perished, there were a few men and women who were on the right side; a few who did what had to be done; a few who made the difference; and even today, centuries later, we remember their names and their works.
 
That's the sort of knowledge which is able to overcome the fear of death, the sort of knowledge which gives each of us a personal connection to the infinite. It's true that the self-consciously evolving cosmos, of which I am a part, is the ultimate reality. But it's also true that the Alliance provides my personal connection with that ultimate reality. The Alliance is the means by which I, and many others, can make individual contributions to the future. The Alliance not only magnifies our efforts -- gives us leverage that we wouldn't have if we were working on our own -- but it also provides a safe repository for our contributions, makes them into lasting contributions. And as it keeps them from being washed away in the growing tide of chaos on the outside, it keeps them in place long enough for another member to add his own contribution on top of ours, and then for another to build on top of both, and so on.
 
For example, if one of our members writes a book which is a valuable contribution to our overall effort -- say, member William Simpson and his Which Way Western Man? -- then he doesn't have to worry that it will immediately disappear into oblivion when he dies, or is no longer able to promote it himself. He knows that even after he is gone, the Alliance will remain to continue distributing his book, continue reprinting it, magnifying its effect, until another member is able to build on that work with a book of his own, which advances the Cause still further. 

 
That, of course, is the theory. The trouble is it has been a pretty shaky theory in the past, primarily because far too much was dependent on a single individual: me. Who could be sure whether I would last from one month to the next? Who could know whether or not all of the hard work, and money, and time, he was putting into the Alliance would be wasted? Because I might, at any minute, give up and announce that I was tired of butting my head against the wall, and that would be the end of it.
 
From my own viewpoint things were a little different, but still not particularly encouraging. I knew that I wouldn't give up, but I could see others giving up all around me. It seemed that every time we would manage to struggle ahead a step, we would slide three quarters of a step back again. And I knew that we were not strong enough to keep going at all if I quit, which meant that I had to hang on and keep on pushing things forward until we reached a critical point where I could stand aside and things would keep moving without me, because there would be the right people, ready and able to take over all of my responsibilities. My concern was that nothing must happen to me before we reached that point. From a purely selfish standpoint, I didn't want my spark to wink out without making a difference, and the black thought that kept coming to me late at night was that I was losing the race, that I couldn't reach that critical point soon enough.
 
It was never a matter of quitting. I never worried that all of my hard work was being wasted in the sense that I could've been spending my time more enjoyably. From the time I started, there was only one thing that I could do -- even if there were no hope at all of winning. I couldn't stop even if I had wanted to. Nevertheless, whether I was working willingly or unwillingly, the occasional late-night feeling that it was all for nothing was quite distressing.
 
Fortunately, daylight generally had the effect of dispelling my gloom, and so I was able to present a cheerful face to the world. Now, the only reason that I'm making this confession to you is that my black thoughts are a thing of the past. If I still had them, I certainly wouldn't tell you about them. But the fact is that I have not been gloomy about our prospects for at least the last year-- and I still work late, alone, in the National Office at night. What's made the difference is the results of our recruiting during the past year.
 
For the task that the Alliance must accomplish, quality is everything. In the last year we have been winning commitments from people who have what it takes to get the job done. Attendance at our convention this year may be up only forty per cent. over last year, but the number of people in the Alliance who have what it takes has doubled. We're finally getting the good ones now substantially faster than we're losing them -- and, really, we've just started.
 
For years, we were bogged down in the childishness -- the make believe -- the buffoonery -- the stupidity -- of the right wing. That's no one's fault but my own, of course -- because I knew nothing else but the right wing approach. I really thought that populism, an appeal to the dispossessed, an appeal to the so-called White masses, was the way to proceed, the way to gain strength.
 
And I was often in despair, when I finally realized that it wasn't; when I saw how few people we were winning in whom I could have any confidence at all. Changing our approach was difficult. It meant breaking some bad habits that we had acquired. It meant alienating a certain clientele that we had attracted, whose continued support I was then convinced that we really needed.
 
But we did change. And, within the first six months, I could begin to see a real improvement. The right wing kooks stopped coming around, and in their place came people that I could be proud of -- people in whom I could have confidence. That's when the late night despair disappeared.
 
We have a long, a difficult, and a dangerous road ahead of us yet. There will be many casualties along the way. We'll make more mistakes, certainly, and we'll have to correct ourselves many times. We may yet be overwhelmed by the enemy, or we may be too slow and be overtaken by circumstances -- but I'm now convinced that we can reach our goal.
 
I can foresee the time now when it will no longer make any difference what happens to me, because there will be others who will keep the spark glowing, and will make it grow brighter and brighter with each passing year. I foresee immortality, for all of those who have nourished the spark and who will nourish it in the future. I see more people -- like you who are here with me tonight -- joining our Cause every month, and every week. I foresee a growth, and a strength, and a capability for the Alliance, much greater than we have ever known before. I foresee it not in the distant future any longer, but in the time immediately ahead of us, as you go forth tomorrow and recruit for our Cause other men and women like yourselves. Thank you.

A World Gone Mad

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

A World Gone Mad  

 by Dr. William Pierce 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a great many liberals are not queers.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The scum shall inherit the earth.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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