The Warrior and the Poet: J.E.B. Stuart and Ezra Pound

For the first time in written form, we present a profoundly inspirational speech by Jack Pershing, delivered 30 years ago this month at the General Convention of the National Alliance. (By clicking on the embedded player you can listen to the original recording.) This is one of my very favorite essays and speeches. — Kevin Alfred Strom

by Jack Pershing

transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer

Listen to JEB Stuart and Ezra Pound

THE LAND OF THE FREE and the home of the brave has become the land of the sheep and the home of the wimps. In every direction, as far as one can see through the carcinogenic haze, lies a desert of cynicism, cowardice, criminality, and corruption. It can be rather discouraging.

But we mustn’t be discouraged: The nasty, vulgar, phony world in which we find ourselves is not our world. It’s a fluke, a freak, an oddity. It’s an historical dead end, a swamp in which we are temporarily floundering. Our response to this society should be to reject it.

The kind of life offered us by the System is poison. Who wants to join the legions of lobotomized zombies wasting their lives in pursuit of the gadgets, trinkets, and junk which the System holds up to us as the ultimate good? Our attitude should be that of Socrates, who used to wander through the marketplace of Athens marveling at all the things he could do without.

Not in the sorry present, but in the glorious past of our race will we find the inspiration we need to carry on our struggle. The heroic example of those who came before us enables us to believe that life can be noble and that men and women can be more than catatonic consumers, tormented by the threat of ring around the collar or wax buildup. In a time when we are few, the enemy strong, and victory seems far away we must maintain our resolve unshaken.

By glorying in the deeds of our ancestors, by worshiping the heroes, revering the art, and listening to the music we rekindle again and again the flames of resistance and defiance. To tap this endless source of strength is to banish despondency and apathy from our lives. The result is a quiet but unshakable determination to go on no matter what.

I suggest that we begin with values. A people’s values reflect its soul. If we go back to a time when our people were living purely by their own values, we’re going to be talking about religion.

My dictionary defines religion as the expression of man’s belief in, and reverence for, a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe. This definition really doesn’t apply to the religious beliefs of our ancestors. Wherever we look — from Aryan India, to Iran, to the Slavs, Germans, Celts, Greeks, and Romans — we find a common religious tendency of a unique and essentially heroic nature. Man was never seen as a slave to some Menachem Begin of outer space. There was no cringing before the gods. To the Teuton his god was his “full true” in whom he could trust. Plato speaks of a mutual community of gods and men. Men and the gods were thought to be akin to one another and bound by the same values. The gods weren’t our creators and we weren’t their creatures. We were all part of a timeless order in which creation and destruction alternated in an endless cycle.

Fear of death or punishment by the gods played no part in this religion. One honored the gods by standing up to the slings and arrows of an outrageous fortune like a man. There was no concern with sin, redemption, shame, or damnation. What was there to be redeemed from? Life wasn’t evil. It was hard, but how else should it be? A man had his strong right arm, his weapons, and his comrades. Have courage, live dangerously. Enjoy life. As the Edda says, “Bright and cheerful should each man be, until death strikes him.”

Pie in the sky in the sweet by-and-by was of little interest to our ancestors. Any religion which condemns this world as evil and worthless is alien to our souls. We didn’t need a redeemer to make it all right. It was all right. It was just as it should be.

The only redemption our people conceived of was a self-liberation through contemplation, a sort of sinking into oneself that tapped the power which everywhere flows through the universe and through us. Call it Nature mysticism or pantheism.

Certainly it never occurred to White men to make a business deal with the gods, complete with a list of “do’s and don’ts” and appropriate punishments and rewards. One acted honorably because one was honorable. As Plato said, “Whoever does not feel inwardly bound to the just and morally beautiful will never understand the true nature of virtue and vice.”

Above man and above the gods, implacable and remorseless, was destiny. A strong man endured under the blows of destiny and grew stronger still. As Nietzsche said:What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger. Even with the advent of the new religion, this destiny feeling remained. An Anglo-Saxon proverb said Christ is powerful, but more powerful is destiny. Schopenhauer wrote “A happy life is impossible; the highest to which man can attain is an heroic course of life.” Goethe’s Faustexpressed the same belief, the same spirit. It is belief in spite of all, in spite of the knowledge of the fundamentally tragic character of life.

These religious beliefs reflected the inner life of the men who formulated them. The societies in which they lived were another reflection.

One such, the German tribes which confronted Rome in her latter days, was described by Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman author, orator and administrator who lived in the 1^st and 2^nd centuries. Tacitus tells us that the Germans of that time were a rural people, farming communally-owned fields. Economic activity was yet to become an end in itself and usury was unknown. Large families were the rule and motherhood possessed a special sanctity. It was thought disgraceful to attempt to limit the size of the family. Women were believed to possess special powers of prophecy and their men, Tacitus tells us, “do not scorn to ask their advice or lightly disregard their replies.”

The prime virtues to which men aspired were loyalty, honor, and heroism. Honor and glory ranked higher in the scale of virtue than life itself. The relationship of a man to his leader was similar in many ways to that which bound him to his gods, and was based on mutual service, trust, and loyalty.

Upon reaching manhood each warrior appeared before the tribal assembly and was presented with a shield and spear by his leader, perhaps by his father. To lose one’s shield was the greatest disgrace. As in ancient Sparta, one came home with one’s shield — or on it, dead. Cowards, shirkers, and sodomites could expect no mercy. They would be stomped down into a bog in the belief that deeds of shame should be buried out of men’s sight.

They were a nation of fighters all right, and warfare was their preoccupation. Most preferred fighting to working: “For the Germans have no taste for peace. Renown is more easily won among perils.” The fiercest of all were a caste of professional fighters, drifters who owned nothing, preferring to live off the generosity of their leaders. These super-warriors were in the forefront of every fight and were said to present a ferocious appearance, even in peacetime. They seemed to be forerunners of the Berserkers who served as bodyguards to the pagan kings of Norway. Dedicated to Odin, the Berserkers wore the skins of wolves and bears and howled like beasts when the battle fury came upon them, rendering them impervious to pain and fear.

Nor were women aloof from the demands of the fight. Part of the marriage ceremony consisted of an exchange of weapons: “The woman must not think that she is excluded from aspirations to manly virtues or exempt from the hazards of warfare.” In battle the womenfolk encouraged their men and were not above slaying any who held back from the fight. They treated wounds and took pride in showing off the blows taken by their men.

Possessors of the heroic virtues and courageous to a fault, these ancestors of ours smashed the decadent empire and built a new world on its ruins. We face a similar task of destruction and creation. If we live up to their example we can only succeed.

* * *

J.E.B. Stuart

We needn’t go back 2,000 years, though, to find models of heroism. Let me tell you about two men, in many ways as different as you can find. One was a 19^th century soldier, a gallant cavalier who brings to mind the knights errant of long ago. The other was a 20^thcentury poet, a visionary heavy with the future. One met an honorable opponent on the field in battle, weapon in hand and his comrades around him. The other struggled with an enemy who dealt in deceit and a stab in the back. He fought his fight alone in military prisons and insane asylums. What they had in common was an unconquerable will, a fire in the gut that makes a man determined to die rather than admit defeat.

The one, J.E.B. Stuart, General of Cavalry, Army of Northern Virginia, Confederate States of America. The other, Ezra Pound, poet, economist, eccentric, and philosopher extraordinaire.

J.E.B. “Jeb” Stuart grew up on a modest plantation in southwestern Virginia. He went to West Point and was commissioned second lieutenant in the U.S. Army and was sent out west to fight Indians. A bullet from a Cheyenne brave almost ended his career before it began, but he survived to serve in Bloody Kansas where he tried, mostly without success, to keep abolitionists and slave owners from killing one another.

When Virginia seceded on April 17^th, 1861, Stuart quit the army and went home. He was soon a lieutenant colonel in the Confederate Army. But allow me to introduce him to you as he would have appeared in June of 1863, if you had attended the great cavalry review he held at his headquarters in Culpeper County, Virginia.

It was a hopeful time for the Confederacy. Chancellorsville had been a great victory and defeat at Gettysburg was in the future. New recruits were pouring in, bringing fresh horses with them. (You brought your own horse when you joined the Confederate cavalry.) For a change there was plenty to eat, for men and beasts both.

If you had been on one of the special trains from Richmond, or perhaps driven over in one of the hundreds of carriages which lined the parade ground, you would have been treated to a magnificent show: Lines of troopers two miles long passed in review, their officers clad in splendid new uniforms, sabers glittering in the Virginia sunshine. They staged ferocious charges while the artillery blasted away with blanks.

And, best of all, you would have seen General Stuart mounted on a big blood bay Virginia thoroughbred. He rode over the parade ground, bellowing commands from behind his flowing red beard in a voice which, had everyone been so equipped, would have rendered the microphone a redundant invention.

At about 5’10” and 175 pounds, he was long-limbed and short-bodied and looked best on a horse. And could he ride! One soldier said “He’s the prettiest and most graceful rider I ever saw. I could not help but notice with what natural ease and comely grace he sat on his steed as it bounded over the field.” No soldier ever dressed for the role with more panache. His saddle and bridle were all polished leather and sparkling metal. He wore a gray shell cavalry jacket positively ablaze with gold braid and buttons, and a grey cavalry cape lined with scarlet. Gleaming Russian leather jackboots climbed past his knees and his spurs were of gold. The hands that held the reins were encased in huge yellow leather gauntlets and around his waist was a yellow cavalry sack with golden tassels. His campaign hat was looped up on one side with a gold star and crowned with a black ostrich plume. His sidearms were a big nine-chambered LeMat revolver and a French cavalry saber.

It said that the function of cavalry in war is to add tone to what might otherwise become an unseemly brawl. Jeb Stuart was the living embodiment of that tradition. While they did love military display, there was more to it. Stuart knew that the Confederacy was outmanned, outgunned, and out-produced. Brute force was on the other side. He said, “We must substitute esprit for numbers. Therefore I strive to inculcate in my men the spirit of the chase.” In other words, the preponderance of force was too serious to treat seriously. Better to crack a joke and ride off to the fight, whistling a merry tune, plume waving in the wind. And that’s how Stuart fought his war. One officer said, “Like some chevalier of olden days he rode to battle with his lady’s glove upon his helm, determined to conquer or die.” He lived to the tune of a popular song of the day called, “Join the Cavalry”: If you want to see the Devil, if you want to smell Hell, if you want to have fun, join the cavalry!

And he surrounded himself with his kind of soldier. Sam Sweeny, a former blackface minstrel whose brother reportedly invented the banjo, went with him everywhere, playing Will Scarlet to Stuart’s Robin Hood. General A.P. Hill pleaded: “Keep him away, keep him away from my camp! Every time Jeb Stuart comes around with Sweeny and his banjo he makes my whole division want to join the cavalry.”

Stuart’s chaplain was Major Dabney Ball, known as The Foraging Parson. It was said that no chicken could live in the vicinity of this consummate master of the midnight commissary.

Stuart’s horse artillery was commanded by young John Pelham, son of an Alabama country doctor. At West Point he had amazed the Prince of Wales with his horsemanship. In a dozen battles his reckless courage earned him immortality as The Gallant Pelham. Blond and strikingly handsome in his boyish way, he was like a young Baldur or Siegfried. When he was killed it was said that the train carrying him home was stopped at every station in Alabama by crowds of women who piled his casket high with flowers.

Heros von Borcke

Then there was Heros von Borcke, late of the Third Dragoon Guards, Royal Prussian Army — a gentleman adventurer who ran the blockade to fight for the Confederacy. At 6’4” and 250 pounds, he was described as “a giant in stature, blond and virile with great curly mustaches and the expression in his wide-open blue eyes of a singularly modest boy.” Wielding the largest saber in the Confederate cavalry, von Borcke was the kind of man who could, with some satisfaction, practically decapitate an opponent in battle and that evening squire a pretty girl around the dance floor with all the courtliness of the continental gentleman which he in fact was. Immensely popular, he was the cause of widespread dismay when a rumor somehow spread that he’d been killed in battle. When the governor of Virginia wrote to Stuart, suggesting that the body be sent to Richmond for burial with honors, Stuart wrote back: “Can’t spare body of von Borcke; it is in pursuit of Yankees.”

Robert E. Lee’s sons, Fitz and Rooney, served with Stuart, and what more need be said of them but that they were a credit to the old man.

Stuart’s troopers were, for the most part, born to the saddle and supplied their own horses, many of them thoroughbreds from the stud farms of Virginia and South Carolina. Until attrition wore them down late in the war, both men and mounts were vastly superior to their Union counterparts, many of them city boys riding nags purchased from less than scrupulous dealers. If the horse had more than three legs and wasn’t stone blind it was considered acceptable.

Fine horsemen that they were, Stuart had to teach his men how to soldier. Given the situation, it had to be on-the-job training. One such exercise began with a ride into hostile territory. When they encountered a skirmish line of bluecoats, Stuart rode in their direction and gave the order to dismount. Only when the Union troops were practically on top of them did he allow his men to mount up. As bullets whistled around them, they gracefully rode away — slowly. As though he were lecturing a classroom, Stuart patiently explained: “Cavalry can trot away from anything — and a gallop is a gait unbecoming to a soldier unless he is going toward the enemy. Remember that. We gallop toward the enemy and trot away, always.”

They learned quickly in this hard school. The lessons were taught in little cavalry fights that killed men as dead as Gettysburg. Soon they thought nothing of spending a week in the saddle, and if nothing better came their way they could live off ripe corn, or half ripe corn, eaten raw in some farmer’s field.

Sometimes something better did come their way. In June of 1862, Stuart led 1,200 picked men in a reconnaissance in force around the Union right flank. Scattering the Federal cavalry that got in their way, they burned bridges, shot up trains, cut telegraph poles, and became one of the few cavalry outfits to fight an artillery duel with a warship, specifically the gunboat USS Marblehead. They burned a Federal camp, much to the delight of von Borcke: “The whole camp was enveloped in one blaze, hundreds of tents burning together, wonderfully beautiful.” The ordinary horse solider was more appreciative of the goodies with which the Union army appeared to be supplied in an infinite amount and variety. Stopping to rest the horses, they pigged out on whatever they could find: figs, ketchup, sausages, lemons, oysters — and booze. John Mosby recalled the scene as “a carnival of fun I could never forget. Nobody thought of danger or sleep when champagne bottles were popping.” All had perfect confidence in their leader. When they rode off again, more than a few troopers were three sheets to the wind. Rooney Lee, alarmed, started a rumor that a man had died from drinking poisoned whiskey. As the rumor spread, captured whiskey bottles could be seen arcing through the night air all along the length of the column.

This was the famous Ride around McClellan. Stuart’s army had circumnavigated the entire Army of the Potomac. To add insult to injury, Stuart did it again that fall. Shortly thereafter, McClellan was replaced by Ambrose Burnside, prompting General Lee to remark wistfully, “McClellan and I always understood each other so well and I’m afraid they may keep making these changes until they find someone I don’t understand.”

Stuart never let up. General Joe Johnston said of him, “Stuart is like a yellow jacket. You brush him off and he flies right back on.” On Christmas day, 1862, a raid on Union supply lines resulted in one of the best jokes of the war. At Burke’s Station, Stuart commandeered the local telegraph office and sent the following telegram: “Quartermaster General Meigs, United States Army: Quality of mules furnished me lately very poor. Interferes seriously with movement of captured wagons. Signed:  J.E.B. Stuart.”

Eluding pursuing Yankees proved easier than escaping the admiring southern womenfolk. Stuart was liable to be taken prisoner at any time and his tailor was kept busy replacing buttons lost to the more daring souvenir hunters. Von Borcke recalled an incident in which Stuart was captured by an admiring throng of ladies. “Many,” said von Borcke, “with tears in their eyes, kissing the skirt of his uniform coat or the glove upon his hand.” Stuart demurred, allowing as how a kiss on the cheek might be more appropriate. Von Borcke wrote, “The kisses now popped in rapid succession like musketry, until our general was placed under as hot a fire as I’d ever seen him sustain on the field of battle.”

Stuart’s blue eyes often sparkled with laughter, but they could just as readily flare with fighting fury. “We must nerve our hearts,” he said, “with a determination to die rather than submit.” And death was never far away. Always leading from the front, the famous black plume waving, singing gaily over the din of battle, he had an electrifying effect on his men. But they feared for him. Horses were shot from under him more than once, and on one occasion, to his great amusement, one side of his mustache was shot away as cleanly as if by a barber’s razor. As an admirer wrote, “His indifference to danger impressed everyone. It would be difficult to imagine a coolness more supreme.”

Taking command of the wounded Jackson’s corps at Chancellorsville, Stuart was a subject of ecstatic reports. We see him on his big bay charger, dashing into a crumbling formation, grabbing the battle flag and turning the men around and leading them in the assault, singing, as he always did in battle, his great voice booming over the cannon’s roar. E.P. Alexander said, “I do not think there was a more brilliant thing done in the war. Stuart never seemed to doubt he could crash his way wherever he chose to strike.”

Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

Stuart never expected to live through the war, and, in any case, preferred death to defeat: “I’d rather die than be whipped.” It happened on May 11^th, 1864, at a place called Yellow Tavern. Stuart sustained a serious abdominal wound, which, considering the limited medical knowledge of the day, gave every indication of being mortal. He was taken to Richmond and the doctors did for him what little they could. When President Jefferson Davis came to ask how he felt, Stuart answered, “Easy, but willing to die if God and my country think I have fulfilled my destiny and done my duty.”

He died at 7:38 PM, May 12^th, 1864, and was buried the next day to the roar of distant guns. He was 31 years old. Richmond wept, but there was rejoicing in Valhalla as a mighty warrior strode across the rainbow bridge and entered the great hall of the gods.

* * *

The young Ezra Pound

To me, Jeb Stuart was the quintessential Aryan warrior, the incarnation of the soldierly virtues which will be indispensable to any successful White renaissance. But martial ardor alone won’t save us. The power of the pen must complement that of the sword. We need philosophers as well as soldiers, poets as well as warriors: thinkers like Ezra Pound as well as fighters like Jeb Stuart.

Ezra Pound was the possessor of a penetrating intellect, a man of wide learning, and a gifted lyrical genius. He was a profoundly serious man who never made the mistake of taking himself too seriously. He was a rake, a rogue, a bohemian bon vivant, in short an American original by any standard, an extraordinary individual.

Born in 1885 in Hailey, Territory of Idaho, Pound was raised in Wyncote, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia. His father was the assistant assayer at the Philadelphia Mint. His family was wealthy enough that he made two childhood visits to Europe, once with an aunt, and once with his father. After taking his M.A. from the University of Pennsylvania 1905, he went a third time on a research fellowship and spent most of the seven months vagabonding through Provence, Spain, and northern Italy. Brilliant, but brittle, Pound clashed with his professors and his fellowship was discontinued. A short teaching stint at Indiana’s Wabash College ended when a burlesque dancer turned up in his rooms.

He decided to go back to Europe to seek fame and fortune as a poet. Pound arrived in Europe in the spring of 1908 with a sheaf of poems and $80. He lived in Venice that summer in an apartment over a bakery. He strolled along the seashore, lived on sweet potatoes and barley soup, observed the life around him, thought, and wrote poetry. It was as if he was gathering his energies.

In September of that year, Pound collided with London and England trembled from the impact. His energy, wit, and enthusiasm captivated everyone. As William Carlos Williams phrased it, “He lived the poet as few of us had the nerve to live that exalted role in our time.” He was a total nonconformist complete with a broad-brimmed troubadour hat and an earring. At a literary breakfast he astonished his companions by eating a rose from the centerpiece. Then he ate another one.

In six months, Pound had met Williams, D.H. Lawrence, Ford Madox Ford, and William Butler Yeats among others. Within a year he was a published poet of note and a fixture on the literary scene. The next decade was a period of feverish literary activity; ten years during which Pound practically invented modern poetry and profoundly influenced, discovered, or promoted such luminaries as T.S. Elliot, Robert Frost, and James Joyce.

He was a key figure in a movement which he called Vorticism, a rebellion against Victorian rigidity which had some elements in common with the Italian Futurists. He said, “We might come to believe that the thing that matters in art is a sort of energy, something more or less like electricity; transfusing, welding, and unifying.”

After the Great War of 1914-18 Pound became convinced that something was terribly wrong with Western civilization, and he determined to find out what it was. It was at this time that he met Major Clifford Hugh Douglas, a civil engineer who had worked out a new economic philosophy called Social Credit. In brief, it was based on the idea that wars and economic disruptions are caused by the manipulations of a small group of international financiers. To Pound and others, it soon became apparent that most of these people were Jews. Indeed the whole usurious modern economic system was a gargantuan Semitic swindle, a con game on a colossal scale.

This was Pound’s personal Rubicon, and he crossed it without a backward glance. He wrote a poem on the subject:

With usura hath no man a house of good stone

each block cut smooth and well fitting…

no picture is made to endure nor to live with

but it is made to sell and sell quickly

with usura, sin against nature,

is thy bread ever more of stale rags

is thy bread dry as paper,

with no mountain wheat, no strong flour…

Usura rusteth the chisel

It rusteth the craft and the craftsman…

Usura slayeth the child in the womb

It stayeth the young man’s courting

It hath brought palsey to bed, lyeth

between the young bride and her bridegroom

              CONTRA NATURAM

They have brought whores for Eleusis

Corpses are set to banquet

at behest of usura.

By 1921, Pound had found London becoming stale and he went to Paris. He met anybody who was anybody in the “lost generation.” Gertrude Stein didn’t find him amusing, but to Ernest Hemingway “He was the man I liked and trusted the most as a critic.” After a three-year sojourn in the City of Light, Pound decided to avail himself at the more peaceful, if less brilliant, surroundings of Rapallo, a picture-postcard Italian resort town not far from Genoa. Red tile houses climbed up the hills from the Mediterranean, and from his apartment he could observe the interplay of light and color on the sea. As he wrote to a friend, “I knew paradise when I saw it.”

Italian leader Benito Mussolini

Benito Mussolini was building a new Italy and Pound took an interest in Fascism. He thought he detected a kindred spirit in the Duce. He saw Mussolini, whom he referred to as The Boss, as a man driven by a vast and deep concern, or will, for the welfare of Italy. Not Italy as a bureaucracy, or Italy as a state machinery stuck up on top of the people — but for Italy organic, composed of the last plowman and the last girl in the olive yards. From his headquarters in Rapallo poured forth a steady stream of correspondence, books, articles, and poems chiefly concerning politics and economics. “Quite simply,” he wrote, “I want a new civilization.”

Unimpressed by the irrelevancies pursued so avidly by his former literary colleagues, he declared “Preserving public morality is more important than exploring psychological hinterlands.” As Jew-inspired war fever began building in the 1930s, Pound leapt to the defense of Italy against the Judocratic press. And not only Italy: When he became the object of propaganda on behalf of the Spanish Communists, he fired off a counter-blast, calling the anti-Franco crusade “an emotional luxury to a gang of sap-headed dilettantes.” In What Is Money For he commended the author of Mein Kampf for his statement that “the struggle against international finance and loan capital had become the most important point in the National Socialist program; the struggle of the German nation for its independence and freedom.”

In the spring of 1939, Pound sailed to the U.S. in a last ditch bid to sidetrack the Hebrew war machine. He talked to a number of isolationist politicians in Washington, but he really didn’t get anywhere. Elsewhere, though, he got his licks in. During a poetry reading at Harvard, he noticed that quite a few Jews were in the audience — and promptly changed the program to include his most “anti-Semitic” poems.

When war came, Pound was back in Rapallo and there he stayed. Convinced that his duty to his country lay in exposing the treasonous machinations of Roosevelt and his Jew bosses, he offered his talents to the Italian broadcasting service. His American Hour broadcasts crackled across the airwaves, propelled by a righteous fury at the treason, ignorance, and stupidity that was leading the Anglo-Saxon powers down the garden path: “Democracy,” he said, “is now defined in Europe as a country governed by Jews.” The chief villain was variously labeled “Franklin Finkelstein Roosevelt,” “Stinky Roosenstein,” or “Jewsfelt.” Whatever his name was, Pound considered him “below the biological level at which the concept of honor enters the mind.” The first lady became “Eleanor Oozenfeld”; a personage, according to Pound, “who has carried vulgarity to the point of obscenity and has the mind of a lavatory attendant.”

He spoke to both England and America: “Europe calling, Pound speaking. They say an Englishman’s head is made of wood, and an American’s head is made of watermelon — it’s easier to get something into the American’s head, but well nigh impossible to make it stick for ten seconds. I don’t know what good I’m doing — I mean what immediate good — but some things you folks on both sides of the wretched ocean will have to learn, war or no war, sooner or later.”

Pound told them the facts of life in no uncertain terms: “Ezra Pound speaking from Rome. Is there a race left in England? Has it any will to survive? I doubt it. Nothing can save you, save a purge; nothing can save you save the affirmation that you are English. Hore Belisha is not. Isaacs is not. No Sassoon is an Englishman racially. No Rothschild is English, no Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehmann, Warburg, Kuhn, Schiff, Sieff, or Solomon was ever yet born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you have murdered your empire.”

The perversity of American policy aroused both Pound’s anger and his pity: “For the United States to be making war on Italy is just plain damn nonsense. There’s no connection between submitting to the Roosevelt/Morgenthau frauds and patriotism. There’s no patriotism in submitting to the prolonged multiple frauds of the Roosevelt administration. And to try to make the present support of these frauds figure as loyalty to the American heritage is so much dirt and buncombe. There’s so much that the United States does not know. This war is proof of such vast incomprehension, such tangled ignorance — so many strains of unknowing. You are in black darkness and confusion. You have been hugger-muggered and scarum-shouted into a war and you know nothing about it. You know nothing about the forces that caused it.” Like a beacon of sanity shining through a fog of madness, Pound berated, cajoled, and scolded his countrymen, who in their confusion sent their sons to die for a gang of cutthroats and shysters.

Despite the herculean efforts of the warriors of the New Order, an inscrutable fate gave the victory to the bigger battalions of the befuddled Allies, and on April 28^th, 1945, Mussolini and his mistress, Claretta Petacci, were ritually murdered by Communist partisans. By May 3^rd American troops were in Rapallo, and the Reds had arrested Pound.

A defiant Ezra Pound, photographed immediately after his arrest in 1945

He was turned over to the counter-intelligence center in Genoa, and a 13-year ordeal began which would have broken the will of many men much younger than Pound’s 60 years. But to his eternal credit he fought for his beliefs, for his sanity, for his very existence. And he wrote poetry.

For three weeks Pound was confined in a 6 foot by 6.5-foot wire cage. Exposed by day to the heat, glare and dust, by night it was brilliantly floodlit. The toilet was a tin can. Pound shadowboxed, played tennis, fenced with imaginary opponents, watched the insect life, and tried to survive. His spirit resisted but flesh wilted under that brutal regimen. His memory failed and he collapsed. Only then, half dead, was he put in a tent, which, while far from comfortable, was less murderous than what he called “the gorilla cage.”

After six months of detention without trial, Pound was flown to Washington, D.C., declared mentally incompetent, and confined in the ward for the criminally insane at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital. A grim human warehouse built in the 1880s, it would be Pound’s home for 13 months. His cell had a black steel door with nine peepholes — to allow observation of the lunatic within. Madmen shambled up and down the hall outside, drooling and gibbering. Visitors recoiled at the overpowering odors of sweat and bile. But it was the visits to which Pound clung as a sheet anchor of sanity. At night loneliness and claustrophobia closed in. By day, psychiatrists poked and prodded in endless mental examinations.

In spite of everything, Pound kept both his sanity and his integrity. True to himself, he could later say, “I remember a moment of quite irrational happiness in the hellhole.”

In February 1947, Pound was at last moved to a regular ward and allowed visitors for two hours a day. Over the next eleven years he carried on manfully, doing his best to live as a sane man in an insane world. In spite of his imprisonment, his literary reputation continued to grow and pressure for his release mounted.

Finally, in May of 1958, the treason indictment against him was dismissed and the 73-year-old poet was released. He wasted little time in returning to Italy. In Naples, he was photographed giving the Fascist salute and was quoted as saying, “All America is an insane asylum.”

Nietzsche said, “Many live too long, and many a one grows too old even for his truths and victories.” Sadly, this was true of Pound. In his ninth decade, his vitality slowly ebbing, he seemed to lose faith in his poetry and his vision and in himself. What Man couldn’t do was accomplished by Time, which wears down even the mountains.

The essential Pound, though, lives on in his poetry:

“Thank you, whatever comes.” And then she turned
And, as the ray of sun on hanging flowers
Fades when the wind hath lifted them aside,
Went swiftly from me. Nay, whatever comes
One hour was sunlit and the most high gods
May not make boast of any better thing
Than to have watched that hour as it passed.

Ezra Pound, back in Italy and still defiant after 13 years of false imprisonment by the US government: “All America is an insane asylum.”

A popular song of a few years ago contained a line that went, “It’s a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack.” It is indeed a strange world, a world in which Ezra Pound is declared insane while a bag of garbage like Martin Luther King is enshrined as a national hero — a world where the misshapen, the botched, and the retarded are the subject of a morbid fascination, while millions of healthy babies are flushed down the sewers with no more ceremony than is accorded the disposal of a stale bologna sandwich — a world turned upside down, in which all that is worthy and noble is condemned, while the perverse, the wretched, and the downright rotten is held up as the ideal. Living in such a world and keeping one’s sanity, not to mention one’s good humor, is not always an easy task.

But not only must we live and avoid going bananas, we must fight to bring into being a new and better world. As the hero said in The Outlaw Josey Wales, “If things get bad and it looks like you’re not going to make it, you gotta get mean — I mean plumb mad dog mean — ’cause if you lose your head and give up, you neither live nor win. That’s just how it is.”

It’s going to be a long war. At times each of us will feel the clammy fingers of despair clutching at his throat and hear an insistent voice, clamoring, “Give up, it’s no use.” Help one another. When one weakens, another must be strong. In the midst of the wreckage of a dying civilization take your inspiration from your heritage and from each other. Nietzsche said that we should love war. I believe that — for only in struggle can we develop to our maximum potential.

Rejoice, then, for it has been given to us to be soldiers in the greatest war of them all. As Zarathustra said, “I do not exhort you to peace; I exhort you to victory. What good is long life, what warrior wants to be spared? I do not spare you; I love you from the very heart, my brothers in war.” Thank you.

Listen to JEB Stuart and Ezra Pound

Further Reading

This Difficult Individual: Ezra Pound by Eustace Mullins (PDF)

J.E.B. Stuart by John Thomason

source: http://nationalvanguard.org/2013/09/the-warrior-and-the-poet-j-e-b-stuart-and-ezra-pound/

Dr. Pierce on Feminism: The Great Destroyer

Feminism: The Great Destroyer
An Interview with Dr. William Luther Pierce
By Kevin Alfred Strom

K.A.S.: There is a continuing public debate about the role of women in our society and the related subjects of sexism and feminism. One example was the hullabaloo that occurred during the confirmation of Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court. Feminists and their claque in the media charged that this confirmation was an affirmation of the "sexism" rampant in the U.S. political establishment. The cure for this alleged problem is to get more women into positions of political power, according to many people in the media.

Another example was the uproar about a drunken party several years ago in Las Vegas for Navy fliers at which several women who showed up were manhandled -- in particular, a female flier who later complained to the media about her treatment. The news coverage of the Las Vegas party brought demands from media spokesmen and politicians for rooting out the "sexism" in the armed forces and giving women equal roles in everything from infantry combat to flying fighter jets. Do you see any real or lasting significance in this debate?

W.L.P.: Oh, it's certainly a significant debate. The significance is perhaps not exactly what the media spokesmen would have us believe it is, but there is a significance there nevertheless. Getting at the real significance, pulling it out into the light where everyone can see it and examine it, requires a little care, though. There's a lot of misdirection, a lot of deliberate deception in the debate.

Look at the first example you just mentioned. The controlled media would have us believe that the approval of Clarence Thomas by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the face of Anita Hill's complaints about him demonstrates a callous insensitivity to women's welfare. But what were Anita Hill's complaints? They were that when Thomas had been her boss in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission he had asked her several times for a date and that on one occasion he had begun describing to her a pornographic film he had seen the evening before. She never alleged that he had demanded sexual favors from her, threatened her, or put his hands on her. Her complaint was that he had shown a normal, healthy interest in her as a woman. He had asked her for a date.

Talking to her about a pornographic film may have indicated a certain lack of refinement on his part -- at least that would be the case if the two of them were members of a traditional White society, in which gentlemen didn't talk about pornographic films in the presence of ladies, at least not in the office -- but what the hell, the folks who were raising such a fuss about Thomas's behavior are, like both Clarence and Anita themselves, all members of the brave, New World Order society, which is neither White nor traditional. It's a so-called "multicultural" society in which there are no gentlemen and there are no ladies; there are just male and female people, and the female people are no different from the male people: they are just as bawdy, just as vulgar, just as aggressive.

K.A.S.: So you believe that the whole thing was just a tempest in a teapot, that it really wasn't significant?

W.L.P.: A tempest in a teapot, yes, but still very significant. One aspect of the Clarence and Anita circus was that it was simply seized on and used by people with a certain political agenda, and so of course their tendency was to make as much ado as they could about it. But another aspect is that many of the feminists who were screeching against Thomas and against the Senate's approval of him really were indignant that the man had asked Anita Hill for a date. They really were outraged that he had an interest in her as a woman and did not simply treat her as another lawyer in his office. Men are not supposed to notice women as women, but only as people, and radical feminists really do become angry if one drops this unisex pretense even for a minute. Open a door for one of them and you'll get a nasty glare; call one of them "my dear" or refer to her as a "girl" and you'll be slapped with a civil rights lawsuit.

The fuss about this Tailhook Association party in Las Vegas reveals the same sort of nuttiness. I mean, what do you expect when a bunch of Navy fliers throw a wild, drunken orgy? They had held their party in Las Vegas several years in a row, and the party had gained a bit of a reputation. It was notorious. Everybody in Naval aviation knew all about it. The Navy women who went to the party knew what to expect. They joined the orgy. Any woman who didn't want to be pawed by drunken fliers and have her panties pulled off stayed away. Certainly, if these Navy fliers had shanghaied some unsuspecting woman off the street and forced her to submit to indignities, I would be the first to call for their being put up against a wall. I'll go further and say that I really don't approve of drunkenness under any circumstances -- although I believe it's only realistic to accept drinking as a fact of military life. But I cannot work up much sympathy for a woman who, knowing what the Tailhook parties are like, decides that she will pretend that she really isn't a woman but rather is a genderless Navy flier and so can go to the Tailhook party without worrying about her panties.

K.A.S.: That's really irrational isn't it? It doesn't make sense to ignore human nature like that.

W.L.P.: Irrationality seems to be the rule rather than the exception in public affairs these days. Feminism, of course, is just another exercise in reality denial, which has become such a common pastime. There are too many people out there who seem to believe that if we pretend that men and women are the same, they really will be; that if we pretend there are no differences between Blacks and Whites except skin color, the differences will disappear; that if we pretend that homosexuality is a normal, healthy condition, it will be.

Feminism is one of the most destructive aberrations being pushed by the media today, because it has an immediate effect on nearly all of us. There are many sectors of the economy, for example, in which racial-quota hiring and promotion - so-called "affirmative action" -- isn't a real problem, and so White people who work in those sectors remain relatively unaffected by the racial aspects of America's breakdown, but feminism is becoming pervasive; there are few relationships between men and women, especially between younger men and women, which will not suffer from the effects of feminism in the near future.

K.A.S.: You just referred to feminism as "a destructive aberration" and spoke of the breakdown of America. Are the two things connected?

W.L.P.: When homosexuals come out of the closet and women go into politics, empires crumble. Or, to say that a way which more accurately reflects the cause-effect relationship, when empires begin to crumble, then the queers come out of the closet and women go into politics. Which is to say, that in a strong, healthy society, feminism isn't a problem. But when a society begins to decay -- when the men lose their self-confidence -- then feminism raises its head and accelerates the process of decay.

K.A.S.: Before we go further, exactly what do you mean by feminism? Can you define the word for us?

W.L.P.: Feminism is a system of ideas with several distinguishing characteristics. First, it's a system in which gender is regarded as the primary identifying characteristic, more important even than race. Second, and paradoxically, it's a system in which men and women are regarded as innately identical in all intellectual and psychical traits, and in all physical traits except those most obviously dependent on the configuration of the genitalia. Third, it's a system in which filling a traditionally male role in society is valued above being a wife and mother, a system in which the traditional female roles are denigrated. Finally, it's a system in which men and women are regarded as mutually hostile classes, with men traditionally in the role of oppressors of women; and in which it is regarded as every woman's primary duty to support the interests of her fellow women of all races against the male oppressors.

I should add that not every woman who describes herself as a feminist would go along 100% with that definition. Real feminism is not just an intellectual thing; it's a sickness, with deep emotional roots. Some women just want to be trendy, but are otherwise normal. They just want to be fashionable, and feminism is held up by the media as fashionable these days. It's Politically Correct.

And while we're at it, we should note that there is an analogous malady, usually called male chauvinism, which expresses itself in a range of attitudes toward women ranging from patronizing contempt to outright hatred. Feminists often attribute the growth of feminism to a reaction against male chauvinism. Actually the latter, which never afflicted more than a minority of White men, has been more an excuse for the promoters of feminism than a cause of that disorder.

K.A.S.: OK. So that's what feminism is. Now, in what way is it destructive? How is it connected to America's decline?

W.L.P.: Feminism is destructive at several different levels. At the racial level it is destructive because it divides the race against itself, robbing us of racial solidarity and weakening us in the struggle for racial survival; and because it reduces the White birthrate, especially among educated women. It also undermines the family by taking women out of the home and leaving the raising of children to television and day-care centers.

At a personal or social level feminism does its damage by eroding the traditional relationship between men and women. That traditional relationship is not based on any assumption of equality or sameness. It's not a symmetrical relationship, but rather a complementary one. It's based on a sexual division of labor, with fundamentally different roles for men and women: men are the providers and the protectors, and women are the nurturers. Men bring home the bacon, and they guard the den; women nourish the children and tend the hearth.

Many people today sneer at this traditional relationship. They think that in the New World Order there is no need to protect the den or the condo or whatever, because these days we're all very civilized, and that all one needs to do to bring home the bacon is hop in the car and drive to the nearest shopping mall, and, of course, a woman can do that just as well as a man. Therefore, because the times have changed, roles should change. There's no longer any reason for a division of labor; now we can all be the same, claim the apologists for feminism.

Now, I have a couple of problems with that line of reasoning. First, I'm not as eager to toss million-year-old traditions in the ash-can as the New World Order enthusiasts are, because I'm not as confident in the ability of the government to provide protection for all of us as they are, nor am I as confident that there'll always be bacon at the neighborhood shopping mall and we won't have to revert to earlier ways of getting it. Actually, I'm an optimist by nature, but I'm not so optimistic as to believe that I'll never be called on to use my strength or my fighting instincts to protect my family. In fact, every time I watch the evening news on television, I become more convinced that there's a very good chance we're going to end up having to fight for our bacon within the next few years.

In the second place, Mother Nature made a very big investment in her way of doing things over the past few million years of primate evolution. It's not simply a matter of our deciding that we don't like Mother Nature's plan because it's not fashionable any longer, and so we'll change it. We are what we are. That is, we are what millions of years of evolution have made us. A man is a man in every cell of his body and his brain, not just in his genitalia, and a woman is a woman to the same degree. We were very thoroughly and precisely adapted to our different roles. We can't change reality by passing a civil rights law. When we deceive ourselves into thinking that we can, there's hell to pay. Which is to say that we end up with a lot of very confused, disappointed, and unhappy men and women. We also end up with a lot of very angry men and women, which accounts for the feminists and the male chauvinists.

It's true, of course, that some women might be perfectly happy as corporate raiders or professional knife fighters, just as some men have willingly adapted to the New World Order by becoming less aggressive and more "sensitive." But it doesn't work that way for normal men and women. What the normal man really wants and needs is not just a business partner and roommate of the opposite sex, but a real woman whom he can protect and provide for. And what a normal woman really wants and needs with every fiber of her being, regardless of how much feminist propaganda she's soaked up, is a real man, who can love and protect her and provide for her and their children. If she's watched too much television and has let herself be persuaded that what she wants instead of a strong, masculine man is a sensitive wimp who'll let her wear the trousers in the family half the time, she's headed for a severe collision with the reality of her own nature. She'll end up making herself very neurotic, driving a few men into male chauvinism, and becoming a social liability. Our society just can't afford any more of that sort of foolishness. If feminism were only making individuals unhappy, I wouldn't be very concerned about it. I've always believed that people were entitled to make themselves as unhappy as they wanted to. But unfortunately, it's wrecking our society and weakening our race, and we must put a stop to it soon.

K.A.S.: How do you propose to do that? The feminist movement really seems to be snowballing, and as you noted the mass media are all for it. It would seem pretty difficult to stop. Anyone who opposes the feminists is perceived as a male chauvinist who wants to take away women's rights and confine them to the kitchen and the bedroom.

W.L.P.: Well, of course, I'm not in favor of taking anything away from women. I'd like to give women the option of being women again in the traditional way, in Nature's way, the option of staying home and taking care of their children and making a home for their husbands. It wasn't the feminists, of course, who changed our economy so that it's no longer possible for many families to survive unless both the man and the woman are employed outside the home. A society which forces women out of the home and into offices and factories is not a healthy society. I'd like for our society to be changed so that it's possible once again for mothers to stay at home with their children, the way they did back before the Second World War, back before the New World Order boys got their hands on our economy and launched their plan to bring the living standard of the average American wage earner down to the average Mexican level. I think many will want to stay home when it's possible to do so. And I am sure that if we provide the right role models for women, most will want to. If we regain control of our television industry, of our news and entertainment and advertising industries, we can hold up quite a different model of the ideal woman from the one being held up today.

Most women, just like most men, want to be fashionable. They try to do and be what's expected of them. We just need to move that model back closer to what Mother Nature had in mind. Then there's no need to take away anybody's rights. A few female lawyers with butch haircuts can easily be tolerated in a healthy society -- a few flagpole sitters, a few glass eaters, a few of all sorts of people -- so long as their particular brand of oddness doesn't begin undermining the health of the whole society.

K.A.S.: But what about the people who control the media now -- what about the legislators -- who are on the feminist bandwagon? They are very powerful. What will you do about them?

W.L.P.: We'll do whatever is necessary. Now we're helping people understand feminism and the other ills which are afflicting our society. Understanding really must come first. After understanding comes organization. And then, as I said, whatever is necessary.

And I should add this: Whatever flies in the face of reality is inherently self-destructive. But we cannot wait for this disease to burn itself out. The toll will be too great. We have to stand up against it and oppose it now. We have to change people's attitudes about feminism being fashionable. We have to make the politicians who've jumped on the feminist bandwagon understand that there will be a heavy price to pay, some day, for their irresponsibility.

K.A.S.: Do you really think that you can change the behavior of the politicians?

W.L.P.: Perhaps not, but we must at least give them a chance to change. Unfortunately in the case of the politicians most of them have many crimes besides an advocacy of feminism to answer for, and they know that they can only be hanged once. 

Dr. Pierce reads Kipling

The Stranger, recited by Dr. William L. Pierce



The Stranger

by  Rudyard Kipling

The Stranger within my gate,
  He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk--
  I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
  But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,
   They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
   They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
   When we go to buy or sell.
   
The Stranger within my gates,
  He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control--
  What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
   Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
   Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
  And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
   They think of the likes of me.

This was my father's belief
  And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf--
  And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
  By bitter bread and wine.

Book review: An American's Dissident Voice

A book review by Andrew Hamilton, April, 2013

An American Dissident’s Voice

 

William L. Pierce
American Dissident Voices
Ed. Shane Webster
Melbourne, Australia: Politically Incorrect Press, 2011

This is a 1,666 page PDF file containing 290 transcribed American Dissident Voices (ADV) radio broadcasts—essentially spoken essays—by William L. Pierce (1933–2002), beginning with his seminal speech “Our Cause,” recorded in 1976, and ending with “Mossad and the Jewish Problem” (June 29, 2002). Its virtue is that it conveniently collects 290 essays into a single file. Previously, it was only possible to access these works piecemeal.

I downloaded the file a few days ago after finding it on a Christian Identity website. Unfortunately, the site is now offline. American Dissident Voices is also supposedly available at Scribd, which I find not a tremendously useful resource, but the page containing the title froze and would not load when I tried to access it. The point is, there is an electronic collection of Pierce’s ADV broadcasts floating around out there.

At present, audio versions of many Pierce broadcasts are available online. Archive.org contains 308 ADV broadcasts that can be listened to or downloaded, and the website of the National Alliance (NA), the white racialist organization founded by Pierce, also archives many broadcasts.

To access the latter, go to the National Alliance home page, place your cursor over the “American Dissident Voices” tab at the top, and click on “Recent Broadcasts” on the drop-down menu. Select any year up to mid-2002 to listen to individual broadcasts. Over the past year, the National Alliance website has frequently been down [It appears now to be down permanently]

Because pro-white material is so frequently censored or removed from the Internet, and pro-white organizations and websites do not last for long, those interested in listening to programs or saving audio or electronic text files should do so in a timely manner.

It is important to build upon the work of those who went before, rather than losing their arduous contributions to our cause through inattention and neglect, stupidly trying to reinvent the wheel every 10 years. We must know about the works of previous white thinkers and activists not solely through hostile, agenda-driven, racist secondary accounts by Jews, academics, and journalists, but directly from our own people.

William Pierce and American Dissident Voices

A Southerner of English, Irish, and Scotch Irish extraction, William Pierce was a professor of physics who left academia in the mid-1960s to join George Lincoln Rockwell‘s American Nazi Party and edit its ideological journal, National Socialist World.

After Rockwell’s assassination in 1967, Pierce joined the National Youth Alliance, which in 1974 became the National Alliance. He remained head of the National Alliance until his sudden, unexpected death from cancer in 2002. As with Rockwell, Pierce’s death occurred exactly when he began to gain some traction after years of often fruitless effort.

Jewish organizations, secret police agencies, and anti-white racists probably regarded William Pierce as the most serious threat to the System in the three decades prior to his death. He combined a fierce revolutionary mentality and sophisticated critique of the existing order with sustained efforts at building a militant, real-world organization.

Pierce was highly critical of Jews and their role in destroying the white race. It is probably fair to say that he hated Jews almost as much as Jews hate whites.

Pierce was a prolific and disciplined writer. His exceptional intelligence, unsurpassed work ethic, prodigious energy, extensive knowledge, and clarity of expression created a body of work that should be preserved for future generations. Unfortunately, most of it appeared in formats that today are not readily accessible.

Beginning in the 1990s and continuing until his death in 2002, he wrote and broadcast a new American Dissident Voices talk every week. ADV evolved into the major outreach tool of the National Alliance. More Americans probably became aware of William Pierce and the National Alliance through that radio program, and then over the Internet, than by any other means.

According to a biography written by University of Vermont professor Robert S. Griffin, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds: An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce (2001), ADV was the brainchild of National Alliance member Kevin Alfred Strom, a former broadcast engineer, who founded it in 1991.

American Dissident Voices, Griffin writes, “was Strom’s operation. He negotiated with stations, produced the tapes of the shows in a studio he set up on the second floor of the Alliance’s headquarters building [in rural West Virginia], and mailed the tapes to the radio stations for later broadcast. He also hosted most of the programs—Pierce handled about one a month.” Some programs consisted of interviews with Pierce.

Kevin Strom in 1991 in the first American Dissident Voices radio studio

“Strom published the scripts of the broadcasts in a monthly Alliance newsletter called Free Speech, and sold audio tapes of the programs through National Vanguard Books catalogs.”

The primary means of dissemination in pre-Internet days was via shortwave station WWCR (World Wide Christian Radio) in Nashville, Tennessee, although I recall also listening to the show over a different shortwave transmitter, WRNO in New Orleans. In the US, ADV was heard on some AM and FM stations, too.

This should provide an idea of how innovative some of our white predecessors have been.

Shortwave broadcasts cannot be heard with ordinary radios; a special shortwave receiver is necessary to snag them from the ether. Shortwave broadcasts travel much farther than regular broadcasts. I used to listen to official (government) shortwave news shows from Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Some programs were in English, but Norway broadcast only in Norwegian.

According to biographer Griffin, Pierce took over the task of doing the American Dissident Voices broadcasts full-time in 1997.

Pierce’s weekly ADV essays total 1,666 pages here. This does not include any of his other writings, which were quite extensive. Griffin noted that Pierce was completely averse to recycling programs; he insisted upon producing a new show each week.

Unfortunately, electronic preservation, while preferable to no preservation whatsoever, falls short of the permanent preservation capabilities offered by print. E-texts are more cumbersome to read, whether on a computer or on a dedicated device such as a Kindle.

Moreover, rapid, unending changes in technology tend to cause enormous amounts of stored material to “disappear,” since it is impossible for most people to continuously update and convert their entire backlog to new formats. That is a full-time job in itself.

Years ago I already owned more than 1,200 books. How could I possibly have “updated” them if storage formats changed every three years?

Similarly, I have old family movies still on Super 8 mm film, and others on VHS videocassettes. But I no longer have access to a Super 8 projector or screen. And VHS has been superseded by DVDs (for playing or recording movies) and digital cameras. Now DVDs are themselves becoming obsolete.

Songs were formerly recorded and played on vinyl records, then 8-track tapes (ever heard of those?), audio cassettes, CDs, and are now stored and played in digital format.

If you are thoroughly familiar with William Pierce, American Dissident Voices, and National Vanguard magazine, you may not fully appreciate the difficulty of keeping his work alive and acquainting new people or new generations with it. Yet, a mere ten years after Pierce’s death, many people, even white nationalists, no longer know who he was, or know him only by name. This problem repeats itself across the entire spectrum of white thinkers who made invaluable contributions to our cause over the years.

The virtue of this particular American Dissident Voices PDF is that it collects all or most of Pierce’s ADV essays in one place in a file that is searchable. Previously, the essays were only available piecemeal.

It would have been nice if the editor had included the dates of the original broadcasts, but they were omitted. Also, although I cannot swear to the textual integrity of the contents, they appear to be accurate.

There is a Table of Contents providing the title of each essay and the page where it can be located. Although there is no Index, the Search function takes you directly to any essay, and can find specific words or phrases as well.

The essays might be somewhat dated because of a tendency to play off of current events. For example, during the Clinton Administration Pierce frequently castigated the President—who was, of course, a real turd.

Years ago I read two books from the 1930s collecting famous newspaper columnist Westbrook Pegler’s columns from that time. They had become so outdated as to have almost no relevance. But Pierce typically illustrated or explicated fundamental principles, greatly minimizing this problem. And some essays are not related to current events at all.

Another feature of the ADV essays, each of which was slightly longer than 3,000 words, is that they were all written to fit a half-hour format. Though the ideas and prose are crystal clear, the subject matter is somewhat diffuse, or tends to wander more, than in essays and articles Pierce wrote specifically for print publication. The latter are more tightly constructed.

Conclusion

In a 1997 broadcast Pierce observed,

The process of social atomization, of deracination, of separating people from their roots and cutting the bonds to their natural communities so that they can become interchangeable units—human atoms—for building the New World Order is being promoted ruthlessly by the Jews and their collaborators. This process is genocidal, because it will certainly destroy us as a people, as a race, as well as destroying us as a nation. (“The Nature of Patriotism,” p. 203)

His view of the situation:

We should never think, "Well, I am only one person. What I do or don’t do isn’t important. I can’t make a difference by myself."

 

That kind of thinking is wrong. We can make a difference. Courage is contagious. It spreads from person to person.

 

And it is powerful. One courageous truth-teller can back down a thousand cowards and liars and hypocrites.

 

There has never been a time in the long history of our race when we were more in need of a few honest men and women, a few people of courage and integrity. There has never been another time when a few good men and women had the opportunity to make such a big difference as they can make right now. (“Brainwashing in America,” 1995, pp. 48–49)

A reasonably objective biography of Dr. Pierce

William Luther Pierce

From Metapedia: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/William_Luther_Pierce

Jump to: navigation, search

William Luther Pierce
William L Pierce circa 1985.
Born	11 September 1933 Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Died	23 July 2002 West Virginia, United States, 69 years old
Nationality	American
Known for	European American interests activist, opponent of Jewish supremacism
Occupation	academic, activist, physicist
Organization	National Alliance

Dr William Luther Pierce III (September 11, 1933 – July 23, 2002) was the leader of the White survival organization the National Alliance and a principal ideologue of the white nationalist movement. First educated as a physicist, he later worked with George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi Party. Pierce became well known as the author of a novel, The Turner Diaries (1978), written under the pseudonym Andrew Macdonald. He founded the religion of Cosmotheism, an admixture of panentheism, and promoted White nationalism, and White survival world-views.

Contents [hide] 1 Background and education 2 American Nazi Party 3 National Alliance 4 The Turner Diaries 5 Final years 6 Videos 7 Notes 8 See also 9 External links 10 Works

Background and education

William Pierce was born on September 11, 1933 in Atlanta, Georgia. His father William L. Pierce II was born in Christiansburg, Virginia in 1892. His mother Marguerite Farrell was born in Richland, Georgia in 1910. Her family were part of the aristocracy of the Old South, descendants of Thomas Hill Watts, the Governor of Alabama and Attorney General of the Confederate States of America. Pierce’s father once served as a government representative on ocean-going cargo ships and sent reports back to Washington, D.C. Later his father owned an insurance agency and died in a car accident in 1942. After his father’s death the family, which included a younger brother, moved to Montgomery, Alabama and then to Dallas, Texas.
He did well in school, skipping one grade. His last two years in high school were spent in a military academy. As a teenager his hobbies and interests were model rockets, chemistry, radios, electronics and reading science fiction. He had hopes of one day becoming an astronaut.
After finishing military school in 1951, Pierce worked briefly in an oil field as a roustabout. He injured himself when a four inch pipe fell on his hand and spent the rest of that summer working as a shoe salesman. Pierce earned a scholarship to attend Rice University in Houston, Texas. He graduated from Rice University in 1955 with a bachelors degree in physics. He worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory before attending graduate school, first at Caltech and then the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he earned his Ph.D. in 1962. He taught physics as an assistant professor at Oregon State University from 1962 to 1965.
Pierce married five times. The first was with Patricia Jones whom he met while at California Institute of Technology. They were married in 1957 and had twins sons, Kelvin and Erik, born in 1962. The marriage ended in divorce in 1982. Pierce remarried that same year to Elizabeth Prostel, whom he met in the National Alliance office in Arlington, Virginia. The marriage ended in 1985 when Pierce moved his headquarters to West Virginia. Pierce married Hungarian Olga Skerlecz in 1986, a marriage which lasted until 1990. Olga left Pierce and West Virginia “for greener pastures in California”. Pierce then wed a woman named Zsuzsanna, who is also Hungarian, in early 1991. They met through an ad that Pierce placed in an Hungarian women’s magazine. Zsuzsanna left him for Florida in mid-1996. His last marriage, which lasted until his death, was with another Eastern European woman whom he married in 1997.

American Nazi Party

It was during this time at Oregon State when Pierce began to notice two social movements on campus that disturbed him: the civil rights and the Vietnam anti-war movements. Pierce saw the Jewish-fueled civil rights movement as a threat to the white race. Also, he believed the anti-war movement to be communist-inspired and led primarily by Jews. He had a brief membership in the John Birch Society in 1962 but eventually resigned because they weren’t critical of Jews.
In 1966 he became an associate of George Lincoln Rockwell, leader of the American Nazi Party. During this time he was the editor of the party's ideological journal, National Socialist World. When Rockwell was assassinated in 1967, Pierce continued to work with the group (this time officially becoming a member) which by then was renamed the National Socialist White People's Party (NSWPP).
In 1968 Pierce received national attention by becoming a Virginia arms dealer creating NS Arms. The venture sold "Negro control equipment" consisting of riot guns, handguns, semi-automatic rifles and chemical mace. Pierce advertised and used NSWPP literature with the warning "Beat the Ban. Stock you home NOW--with weapons for the coming race war!"^[1]
Pierce left the NSWPP in July 1970^[2] and took control of the National Youth Alliance in December 1970 which later became the National Alliance, incorporated in Virginia on February 26, 1974.^[3]

National Alliance

In 1973 Pierce testified against Secretary of State nominee Henry Kissinger before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stating Kissinger as a Jew would favor the interests of Israel over America.^[4]
The National Alliance adopted the Life Rune as its symbol and this organization was to be a political vanguard designed ultimately to bring about a “white racial redemption”. His Cosmotheist Community Church, which was to be the next step of this plan, was set up in the mid-1970s, alongside Pierce’s political projects; the National Alliance, National Vanguard Books, and the weekly broadcast American Dissident Voices. In 1978 Pierce applied for and was denied tax exemption claiming it from the Internal Revenue Service; he appealed and an appellate court upheld the I.R.S. decision. In 1985, Pierce moved his operations from Arlington, Virginia, to a rural area near Mill Point, West Virginia.
When Pierce bought the West Virginia land he incorporated it as the “Cosmotheist Community Church” and applied for Federal, state and local tax exemptions. However in 1986, the “Church” lost its state tax exemption for all but 60 (out of nearly 400 acres) acres and which had to exclusively used for “religious purposes.” The other 340 acres (1.6 km²) were for both the National Alliance headquarters and the National Vanguard Books business and warehouse, and were not ruled tax exempt.

The Turner Diaries

Pierce came to international public attention following the Oklahoma City bombing. The perpetrator, Timothy McVeigh, was alleged to have been influenced by The Turner Diaries (1978), the novel written by Pierce under the pseudonym Andrew Macdonald. The book is a graphically violent depiction of a future race war in the United States, including a detailed description of the mass hangings of many “race traitors” and of any white women who ever had had sex with any non-Whites and in the public streets of Los Angeles, followed by the systematic ethnic cleansing of the entire city. The book, told through the perspective of Earl Turner – an active member of the white revolutionary underground – The Organization-culminates with Turner’s nuclear suicide mission, of which destroyed the military command at The Pentagon, and thus preventing any invasion of the Organization-controlled California. The part most relevant to the McVeigh case is in an earlier chapter, when the book's main character is put in charge of bombing the FBI headquarters in Washington DC. Some have drawn parallels from the book to the actual bombing strikingly similar to the Oklahoma City bombing that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and killed 168 people in 1995. Although The Turner Diaries was originally only available by mail order and at events such as gun shows, it is still believed to have sold well over three quarters of a million copies.
The Turner Diaries also inspired a group of white revolutionary nationalists in the early 1980s calling themselves the Silent Brotherhood or sometimes simply The Order. The Order was connected to numerous crimes, including counterfeiting and bank robbery, and supposedly gave money to the National Alliance. The Order’s leader, Robert Jay Mathews, died in a stand off with police and federal agents on Whidbey Island in Washington when the FBI finally firebombed his hideout.

Final years

Pierce spent his final years living in West Virginia, where he hosted a weekly radio show, American Dissident Voices and oversaw his publishing, National Vanguard magazine, Free Speech and Resistance as well as books published by his book publishing firm National Vanguard Books, Inc and his record company, Resistance Records.
Before Pierce died he allowed professor Robert S. Griffin to live with him for a month with the result being Pierce's biography : The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds (2001) [1]. William Pierce died of cancer on July 23, 2002 at his home in West Virginia.

Videos

In September 1983, in closing remarks at the National Alliance national convention, Dr. Pierce speaks on his mortality and the ultimate victory. On April 28, 2002 he gave his last public remarks before a National Alliance Unit meeting in Ohio.

Notes

1. ↑ "Nazis Set Up Gun Operation", The Free Lance-Star, September 20, 1968, page 6
2. ↑ Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement..., by Leonard Zeskind, page 20
3. ↑ Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement..., by Leonard Zeskind, page 26
4. ↑ White Rage, by Martin Durham, page 27.

See also

• List of articles by William L. Pierce
• Lineage of American Nationalist organizations and individuals
• Einar Aberg
• Robert Edward Edmondson

External links

• The Legacy of Dr. William Pierce
• William Pierce: His Mission
• National Alliance
• Website of National Alliance News
• Nationalist Coalition tribute page to William Luther Pierce
• Pierce, Koehl and the National Socialist White People's Party Internal Split of 1970
• William Luther Pierce at Wikiquote
• Dr. Pierce's National Alliance Bulletins
• Dr. William Pierce’s videos on Podblanc

Works

• The Turner Diaries (1978)
• Hunter (1989)
• Ritual Murder (2001)

Cosmotheism: Wave of the Future

 

 

 

 

For the first time in written form, an important speech by William Luther Pierce (pictured), delivered at the National Alliance offices in Arlington, Virginia in 1977
 

by Dr. William Pierce
transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer

WE HAVE ready tonight the first of a series of pamphlets intended to serve not only as guides for us, but also to aid us in enlightening new people and bringing them into our community.

This particular pamphlet, The Path, is the first in the series because it’s the most fundamental. It states in very concise form, and also, I hope, in relatively easy to understand form, the essence of our truth, the essence of the idea on which our community is founded.

 

It doesn’t state, however, a great many very important things – namely, everything which is implied by our Cosmotheist truth, everything which can be derived from it. It says essentially nothing, for example, about ethics, about race, and about many other things, some of which we have talked about in our earlier meetings here. And the reason that it says nothing about these things is simply that it would have taken a book ten times the length of this pamphlet to say them, and we couldn’t have had that book ready tonight, perhaps not even by this time next year. We eventually will have a book, but first we’ll have a series of pamphlets dealing with ethics, and with race, and with everything else of importance to us – and this is the beginning.

Now, in choosing to commit our Cosmotheist doctrine to writing in this step-by-step way, which is the only practical way for us at this time, we make some difficulties for ourselves, and we leave ourselves open to some dangers – and I’ll talk about those in just a minute. But there’s at least one advantage to this way, in addition to the strictly practical one of not having to wait forever to have at least something down on paper. That advantage lies in stressing to ourselves – and to those we come in contact with – what’s fundamental and what’s derived. This work is first because it’s fundamental. It’s the source; it’s the essence from which everything else will grow.

So having this first will, I hope, help us all to avoid the error of putting the cart before the horse – of attaching more importance, more significance, to derived things than to fundamentals. It should remind us, and it should remind others, that Cosmotheists are not people primarily – and I stress the word primarily – interested in promoting certain racial goals, or certain social or political or economic goals. We are people primarily concerned with fulfilling our mission as the bearers of the Creator’s purpose, as agents of the universal will. That comes first.

Everything else – race, politics, culture, economics – is a means to that single end. The reason I emphasize that tonight, the reason I’ve emphasized it many times before, is that it’s easy to slip into error in this regard. We want to always make sure that one of the distinguishing features between us and others who pursue similar racial or political or social policies is that we don’t put the cart before the horse. Everyone else almost certainly will. But we alone are working for ultimate things, for eternal things, for infinite things – and we must never forget that.

Now, having noted that, we should also understand that we will have difficulty in using this pamphlet by itself in carrying out our work. The truth in it is in too concentrated a form for most people to get their minds around it very easily. They need the derivations, they need the secondary things, the specific examples and illustrations which follow from this truth, in order to begin to comprehend its meaning fully. I know that that will be the case with most ordinary people, even though I took pains to state things clearly and carefully in this pamphlet. So we’ll have to put up with some difficulties and do the best we can until we have actually produced some of those other pamphlets dealing with ethics and race and so on.

Now, beyond this difficulty, there are some real dangers inherent in the generality of our truth as expressed here. Those are the dangers of misinterpretation, of drawing false implications either accidentally or deliberately. Let me give you a couple of trivial examples.

The Path states: “Nothing in the universe exists entirely independently and of itself. Everything is a part of the Whole.” Therefore, some will reason, Whites and Blacks are brothers and we should ignore the superficial difference of race.

 

Another example from The Path: “We’re all parts of the Whole, which is the Creator. Our destiny is Godhood.” Therefore, it will be said, all human life is sacred, as a part of the Creator. We mustn’t hurt or kill anyone. That is, we must be pacifists and humanitarians.

 

Well, among ourselves, we hardly need to go to the trouble to refute these transparent errors. We hardly need to point out in the first example that in a certain sense we are indeed brothers to the Blacks – but in the same sense we are brothers to rattlesnakes, to sea urchins, and to crabgrass, and even to every stone and lump of dirt. We’re all parts of the Whole – but we don’t ignore the differences between the parts. Those differences are as essential a part of the one Reality as is the unity of all things; because it’s a dynamic reality, an evolving reality. In the second example, everything is indeed a part of the Creator and therefore partakes in the Creator’s divine nature – in the same way that every wart or pimple or blackhead on our bodies is a part of us and partakes in our nature. In that narrow sense, everything is sacred in itself. But the overriding importance lies in the particular role a thing plays. It lies in the particular way in which the thing serves the Creator’s purpose. And the fact is that not all things which are parts of the Creator serve that purpose, any more than our warts serve ours.

This is a big topic in itself; we could talk a lot more about these two errors and we could think of a lot more examples of the way in which our truth might be misinterpreted. But I just wanted to illustrate the general nature of the problem that we face, which is inherent in the inadequacy of human language itself.

We can certainly refine and improve the way in which our truth is stated, but we cannot ever entirely eliminate the danger of misinterpretation. If we were the only ones involved, that would be one thing – but we are not the only ones involved in interpreting our truth. There are many others involved. That has both its good and its bad aspects.

Many others are involved because Cosmotheism is an idea whose time has come. I told you before in earlier meetings that we can find partial expressions of Cosmotheism among the writings of the ancients, 25 centuries ago. A great many of the Greek and Roman philosophers understood parts of our truth. The same was true of the pagan philosophers of northern Europe – and also of certain outstanding Christian thinkers in the Middle Ages, despite the fundamental contradictions of Cosmotheism with the teachings of the Church.

Then in the 18th and 19th centuries there was an enormous outpouring of Cosmotheist feeling. Cosmotheism, or at least one aspect of Cosmotheism, was the underlying idea of the entire Romantic movement in art and literature, from Alexander Pope to Joseph Turner and William Wordsworth. And Cosmotheism is the underlying idea of 20th century science. Today, more and more thinkers, scientific thinkers in particular, are coming to understand that fact and also to give explicit expression to that understanding.

I pointed out to you in earlier meetings some of the specifically Cosmotheist statements of some of the medieval thinkers and also some of the more modern philosphers: Hegel, Fichte, and others. The more one looks into the matter, the clearer becomes this Cosmotheist thread running through the spiritual and intellectual history of our race.

Every week I run across more and more examples. Just last Thursday someone sent me this statement by the novelist D.H. Lawrence – and I quote just a part of a longer statement by Lawrence: “We and the cosmos are one. The cosmos is a vast living body, of which we are still parts. The sun is a great heart whose tremors run through our smallest veins. The moon is a great gleaming nerve-center from which we quiver forever… Now all this is literally true, as men knew in the great past, and as they will know again.”

Hundreds of other Cosmotheist expressions by prominent men during just the last few decades can be found. There can be no doubt that our people down through the ages have been groping for the Cosmotheist truth – and today, more than ever, they are finding it. Tomorrow, it will be the dominant idea in the world.

Now it’s possible to understand just why this is our moment in history – just why the Cosmotheist trickle over the last 2500 years should have become a flood today. I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this tonight, but I will just point out a confluence of things which has led to this flood. Perhaps we can talk about them in more detail at another time.

One of the things in this confluence was the reorientation of Western thought during the 19th century from an essentially static to a dynamic view of the universe. Darwin, of course, is the man who played the key role in this reorientation, though it began before him and it was not complete at the time of his death. The medieval view of the world was as a finished creation. Since Darwin, we have come to see the world as undergoing a continuous and unfinished process of creation, of evolution.

This evolutionary view of the world is only about 100 years old in terms of being generally accepted.
Before that, the people who expressed Cosmotheist ideas expressed primarily their feeling of the unity of the universe, in particular of the oneness of God and man as opposed to the Church’s view.

These ideas fall under the general heading of pantheism. But pantheism is only one aspect of Cosmotheism. The pantheists, at least most of them, lacked an understanding of the universe as an evolving entity and so their understanding was incomplete. Their static view of the world made it much more difficult for them to arrive at the Cosmotheist truth.

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

Church doctrine...is fundamentally opposed to our truth.

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

Another thing in the historical confluence leading to the acceptance of Cosmotheism today has been the drastic decline in the role of the Christian church in the last hundred years. Until fairly recently, the Church dominated the intellectual life of the West. Church doctrine, which as I just mentioned is fundamentally opposed to our truth, strongly influenced the outlook of most – in fact, nearly all – thinkers, most teachers, and most writers. Today the Church directly influences only a relatively small minority of the leading thinkers. So this fundamental barrier to the acceptance of the Cosmotheist truth, a barrier which stood for more than a thousand years, has crumbled. I don’t mean, of course, that Christianity is dead, or that the Church has no more influence. Among the masses of the people, Church doctrine is still relatively powerful – but it is no longer so among the leading minds of the West.

Finally, there is the inescapable fact that Cosmotheism is the outlook towards which one is led by modern science – whether one approaches the world microscopically or macroscopically, whether one is studying elementary particles or stellar evolution. And so I repeat – Cosmotheism is the wave of the future.

But just as we rejoice that this is so – that there are many more people now than before who are able to understand and to accept our truth – we must also be gravely concerned because of the dangers that this brings with it.

A minute ago I gave you a couple of examples of ways in which our Cosmotheist truth might be misinterpreted. We can be sure that it will be misinterpreted, both accidentally and deliberately. In fact, it is now being misinterpreted. It’s being misinterpreted accidentally – or, we might say, without malicious intent – by people who have found their way to the essence of our truth and accepted it, but who simply do not have the courage to follow that truth when it leads them into areas which have been made taboo by modern liberalism. They do not have the strength of character, the degree of independence from peer pressure, to allow themselves to draw the correct conclusions from the fundamental truth they’ve accepted when those conclusions are contrary to prevailing liberal dogma.

And so they try to bend that truth, unconsciously, to yield conclusions which are socially acceptable to a degenerate and decaying society – to a society which is morally and intellectually corrupt, to a spiritually empty society.

It’s worthwhile noting here the difference in the type of opposition we face from the liberal establishment today and that which pantheist philosophers faced from the Church in past centuries. The Church was opposed to pantheism and to Cosmotheism on fundamental grounds. The Christian church had men who were genuine philosophers, true intellectuals who were deeply concerned with the nature of reality and with knowing the truth. They were wrong, but they were still sincere men concerned with fundamental ideas. When Meister Eckhart was charged with heresy in the 13th century, it wasn’t because he refused to say the Mass according to the prescribed manner or because he rejected the dogma of the virgin birth or any of the other things having to do with his duties as a priest of the Church. In all those things he was strictly orthodox. His heresy lay in his deepest philosophical writings, and the church immediately spotted this deviation and jumped on him for it.

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

Liberalism is not a philosophy but a disease of the soul.

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

Liberalism, on the other hand, is not at all concerned with truly fundamental ideas. Liberalism is not a philosophy but a disease of the soul. The true liberal is never a true intellectual because liberalism is fundamentally anti-intellectual. Liberalism consists of a collection of related tendencies, which at any particular time may be given concrete expression in a body of dogma. But liberal dogma is not derived from any fundamental philosophy which can be held up for comparison with Cosmotheism and the contradictions noted. And so we have a situation relative to liberalism today which is essentially different from the situation relative to the church in the past. A person who follows the herd in observing liberal dogma can nevertheless accept our truth with no danger that his liberal friends and co-workers will shun him or stone him. There’s no contradiction, no heresy, no social penalty – until one draws conclusions which don’t jibe with liberal dogma. And so there is, and will be, a strong social incentive for the people who are finding their way to the Cosmotheist truth to draw the wrong conclusions from it or to refuse to draw any conclusions at all.

Cosmotheist truth is arrived at through the synthesis of subjective and objective knowledge, or, to use the same words that are used in The Path, through the perfect union of the Creator’s immanent consciousness in man with man’s reason. Our truth comes to us through a blending of the universal consciousness in our race-soul and our genes with our reason. Thus our way at arriving at truth is fundamentally different from the way of most major religions, which depend in a very basic way on revelation, whether through oracles or prophets or what have you. It’s also different from the purely mystical, purely subjective religions of the East which are a fad among so many lost souls in the West today, just as it is different from the pure rationalism which used to be the undisputed philosophy of science until recently.

 

We’re not subject to the sort of problem that the revealed religions have, in which the prophets may contradict one another, or some fine morning someone may claim that he had a vision – or that an angel showed him a book written on leaves of gold – or that Jehovah appeared as a burning bush and handed him a couple of stone tablets inscribed with a new set of laws. And no Cosmotheist can get away with babbling whatever nonsense comes into his head, like the Maharaj Ji and the other yogis can, because our truth is absolute: It must agree with our observations of the universe. And, because our truth comes from the soul, it’s something toward which everyone who shares the same race-soul, the same genes, naturally gravitates. This is, as I pointed out before, is why one can find a Cosmotheist thread running through the entire length of Western spiritual history, including those periods when fundamentally opposed ideas ruled.

But despite these advantages, we do have problems. We do face dangers. As I said, one danger is that of misinterpretation so as to draw socially acceptable conclusions. There’s also the danger of deliberate perversion of our truth. The Jew, after all, even with a different race-soul, is heavily involved in the intellectual and spiritual life of the West. Despite fundamental tendencies which have historically expressed themselves in an entirely different way, he is playing a role in modern science in particular. It may be generally true that the Talmud is the typical expression of the Jewish race-soul and that the Jew with intellectual pretensions is epitomized by the modern hair-splitting, haggling lawyer. Nevertheless, some Jews have seen the Cosmotheist truth underlying modern science, and they are quite clever and quite energetic enough to try to establish for themselves a dominant position in giving expression to this truth – and in interpreting it for everyone else, so that they can blunt the danger it poses to them, and so they can turn it aside and guide it into safe channels. It would be quite naïve of us to say that Cosmotheism is our truth, not theirs, and that we have a natural advantage in interpreting it and that it would be as unnatural and awkward for a Jew to try to set himself up as a Cosmotheist as it would be for a White man to set himself up as a Talmudist and try to debate the rabbis on points of Talmudic doctrine. After all, a Jew, Baruch Spinoza, was one of the foremost expounders of pantheism in the 17th century, at a time when that was hardly a safe or a popular position for anyone to take. He was, in fact, excommunicated by his fellow Jews as a consequence. But because Spinoza was a Jew, he couldn’t help but give a Jewish flavor, a Jewish interpretation, to his pantheism. In particular, the ethical conclusions that he drew from his pantheism were strictly Jewish, and I think it’s only fair to assume that Spinoza had no ulterior motive.

We are in a rather different era today and ulterior motives abound. The danger exists and it’s a very great danger, but there is a way to overcome it – just one way. That way is to give concrete form to our truth, to spell it out not only in its generality, as in The Path, but also in all its particulars – and then to embody those particulars: the ethics, the racial policy, the social policy, and all the rest in a living, growing community of consciousness and blood. That’s what we must do, and that’s what we’re beginning to do now.