Monday, October 31, 2011

Indictment of Christianity by National Alliance Member

Nobler View Wanted
Letter to Editor of National Vanguard magazine issue #103, January-February 1985

I am White and proud of it, but still there are moments when I can hardly restrain my contempt for the values of my fellow Whites. Last weekend, when I attended the funeral of my grandfather, I experienced such a moment.

My grandfather was a man as noble in stature, as high-minded in judgment, as great in soul as any man I have ever met. He was not, however, religious in any conventional sense until the waning years of his life, when his health began to fail and he came under the influence of fundamentalist Christians. Even then I never knew him to speak of God or an afterlife except in picturesque metaphors from Indian folklore which he drew from his many years as superintendent of several Indian reservations.

At my grandfather's funeral, speeches were given both by a Christian minister and by the chairman of the Southern Ute tribe, an Indian. I was struck by the contrast between the two speeches. The minister used the occasion to preach a sermon about the Christian's victory over death through acceptance of Christ. To my mind this was exploitation of the lowest type; a grieving family is particularly susceptible to such proselytizing. But the worst part was that there was hardly a word about my grandfather; none of the accomplishments of his long life seemed to matter. My grandfather was judged by the sole criterion of whether he "believed in Christ."

It was different with the Indian. He spoke of my grandfather as a "big man," a chief, and praised his character, ambition, and love of family. The Indian's speech was such as our White ancestors might have spoken of a fallen chief in the millennia before Christianity.

***********************
If all that counts in a person's life is a single act of faith, an "acceptance of Christ," then a street bum can be equal
of our noblest sons, for that bum too can "believe."
***********************
I know that many of my fellow Whites are Christians, sincerely and ardently so. It is beyond my poor powers to change their beliefs. But I ask them to consider one thing: If all that counts in a person's life is a single act of faith, an "acceptance of Christ," then a street bum can be equal of our noblest sons, for that bum too can "believe."

No doctrine of human betterment can be built on such a foundation. A truer, nobler view must be found. After 2,000 years of Christianity it is to our shame that we have much to learn on this score from the Indians.

G.A.
Chevy Chase, MD

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Dr. Pierce's Tribute to Robert Mathews

What It Will Take
Editorial from National Vanguard magazine #103, January-February 1985


The longest-running national news story of recent months certainly must be the one about the Aryan Resistance Movement (also named in various news accounts as the White American Bastion, the Silent Brotherhood, and the Order). Newspapers have reported, week after week, on multimillion-dollar armored-car robberies and a counterfeiting operation intended to finance a violent overthrow of the U.S. government, fiery shootouts between White revolutionaries and SWAT teams of Federal police agents, an assassination of a Jewish radio commentator and alleged "hit lists" of government officials to be killed, and massive FBI manhunts for surviving members of a group that is said to have involved no more than 40 members. Interest in the Aryan Resistance Movement (ARM) on the part of the television networks and the nationally circulated print media seems still to be growing.

The fascination this story holds for the minions of the controlled media may be due to any of several features. First, there is the sheer scale and relative professionalism of the thing. Previous instances of direct action by "White extremists" have been on the order of three or four Ku Klux Klansmen tanking up on beer and then firing a shotgun from a pickup truck as they sped through a Black neighborhood. By way of contrast, in just one armored-car hijacking (in Ukiah, California) 17 members of ARM, operating with military precision, riddled a Brink's truck with automatic-rifle fire and made off with $3.6 million in cash. The group recruited two Brink's branch managers and were preparing to clean out the main Brink's vaults in San Francisco, where as much as $50 million in cash is kept, when an informer betrayed them. By that time ARM had accumulated a million-dollar arsenal of military weapons, including machine guns, hand grenades, and night-vision sights for their automatic-rifles, as well as high-tech communications equipment and a huge store of explosives.

Then there is the scope of ARM's aims. Violent White resistance in the past nearly always has been strictly local in character, and largely unplanned: ad hoc opposition to a forced busing program, to the destruction of a White neighborhood by a Federal race-mixing decree, or to public activity by an anti-White group. A notable example of the last was the 1979 shootout between Klan members and Black and Jewish members of the Communist Workers' Party, in Greensboro, North Carolina, in which five Communists were killed.

ARM, on the other hand, set its sights on a full-scale, armed revolution, ending with the purification of the U.S. population and the institution of a race-based, authoritarian government. It recruited its activists throughout the country, and it carried out its strikes in half-a-dozen states. Whether or not these strikes were ill-advised, whether or not the recruiting tactics were well thought out, even the question of the feasibility of any type of armed action against the U.S. government under the conditions which now prevail -- these questions are beside the point. The fact is that because of ARM, White resistance in America will never again be the same. The stakes have been raised substantially, and a new level of action has been set, which will be the baseline for future efforts.

************************
ARM set its sights on a full-scale, armed revolution, ending with the purification of the U.S. population and the institution of a race-based, authoritarian government.
************************


But ARM is unique in more ways than the magnitude of its plans and the spectacular nature of its operations. There has been an element of do-or-die heroism, of fanaticism and determination, and of idealistic motivation in the group which causes the heart to swell and the blood to pump more strongly in some observers -- and which causes cold shivers in others. The gentlemen of the press belong almost entirely to the latter group, but even in this deracinated rabble there are a few who still are able to recognize heroism when they see it, and who cannot help but feel a twinge of the White man's natural response to it. Thus, some of the early Washington-state newspaper stories of the death of the group's leader, Robert Mathews, after his single-handed standoff against 100 secret policemen -- especially those stories which quoted from his last testament, a moving document indeed, written just two days before -- lacked the sneering, spiteful tone of later, nationally-distributed news stories.

The real portent of the ARM saga, in fact, lies in the character of Mathews. He hardly fit the controlled media's stereotyped image of the White activist -- that of the deranged "hater" or the cowardly braggart. He was a man who had no time or inclination to hate or brag. He was an intensely earnest man, a passionate man, with strong convictions about what was right and what was wrong, but he also was a very private man, who believed in leaving others alone as long as they left him alone.

In the little town of Metaline Falls, Washington, where he spent the last decade building a small farm on land he cleared from the forest and providing for his wife and son, he was known as a "straight arrow": always friendly and helpful, but never nosy; a hard, steady worker; a non-drinker and non-smoker.

That is not to say that Mathews was oblivious to what was going on elsewhere in the world. He had a voracious interest in both current events and history, and he spent much of his spare time in serious reading. He wanted to understand his race's past, so that he could make some sense out of the chaotic present and gain some hint of what the future might hold.

As his understanding grew, so did his concern -- and so also did, to use his own words, "a suppressed emotion buried deep within my soul, that of racial pride and consciousness." He viewed with increasing alarm the darkening of America by an unchecked horde of non-White immigrants, the insidious inculcation of non-White values into young Americans by a degenerate educational system and alien-controlled entertainment media, the treasonous subservience of the nation's political leaders to a bloodthirsty band of gangsters in the Middle East.

"By the time my son had arrived," he wrote in his last testament, "I realized that White America -- indeed my entire race -- was headed for oblivion, unless White men rose and turned the tide. The more I came to love my son, the more I realized that, unless things changed radically, by the time he was my age he would be a stranger in his own land, a blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan in a country populated mainly by Mexicans, mulattoes, Blacks, and Asians. His future was growing darker by the day."

This realization that his nation and the future of his son were being destroyed before his eyes tormented Mathews. What distressed him even more, however, was the pusillanimous acceptance by his fellow Americans of the evils overtaking the country. Earlier he had written: "A great sickness has overcome us. Why do our people do nothing? What madness is this?"

He contrasted the selfish and cowardly behavior of most White Americans today with their heroism of an earlier era, and with the heroism of their European forbears. "Were the men of the Alamo only a myth?" he asked.

************************
The evil which has spread across the land can still be destroyed, but only by men like Robert Mathews -- only when enough such men have been awakened and have said to themselves, as he did: "I have no choice. I must stand up like a White man and do battle."
************************  
The more he agonized over these questions, the more clearly Mathews saw his own responsibility. Finally, his conscience would let him wait no longer. "I have no choice," he wrote. "I must stand up like a White man and do battle."

And he did.

He took up arms against the enemies of his race, knowing that he had virtually no chance of defeating them, or even of surviving more than a few skirmishes against their overwhelmingly greater resources. "Even so," he acknowledged, "I have no fear. For the reality of life is death, and the worse the enemy can do to me is shorten my tour of duty in this world. I will leave knowing my family and friends love me and support me. I will leave knowing that I have made the ultimate sacrifice to secure the future of my children."

He held to his resolve to do or die, until the end. On November 24, 1984, he and a companion were surprised in a Portland, Oregon motel by some two dozen Federal police agents, after an informer had betrayed him. His companion surrendered, but Mathews shot his way out of the trap in a blaze of gunfire. The following month he and a half-dozen associates were surrounded in their headquarters building on Whidbey Island, Washington, by a task force of more than 100 heavily armed secret policemen.

One or two of the revolutionaries slipped through the police lines and escaped. Of the others, all except Mathews surrendered. For 34 hours he exchanged gunfire with Federal agents, single-handedly repulsing two waves of agents who attempted to storm the headquarters. He used a machine gun to drive off an FBI attack helicopter. After the FBI succeeded in setting fire to the building with magnesium flares, Mathews continued firing through the smoke and flames. He died when tons of stored munitions exploded and demolished the building.

What Robert Mathews did will remain incomprehensible to many White Americans. How can your average "yuppy," steeped in the values of the "me" generation, understand Mathews' concern for the type of world his son would inherit?

How can the clever lawyer in his $500 suit, accustomed to figuring all the angles before making a move, fathom the soul of someone who knew that he must act, regardless of the personal consequences, because it was his responsibility as a man to do so?

How can America's soft, feminized, materialistic masses have any idea of the thinking of a man who made a deliberate choice to die, when he might have lived -- to die fearlessly and defiantly -- solely so his death could set an example for other fearless and defiant fighters who would follow him in the years and decades to come?

************************
How can America's soft, feminized, materialistic masses have any idea of the thinking of a man who made a deliberate choice to die, when he might have lived -- to die fearlessly and defiantly -- solely so his death could set an example for other fearless and defiant fighters who would follow him in the years and decades to come?
************************

No, many Americans will not understand. But some will. And they will also understand that in the final showdown there will be no other way but Bob Mathews' way.

No combination of clever lawyers, yuppies, and Joe Sixpacks will ever beat the Jews. Money will not beat them. Brains alone will not beat them. Votes will not beat them. But blood will, eventually.

The Jews know how to deal with materialists, who think the way they do. They have long experience at outmaneuvering clever schemers and outspending well-heeled opponents. They are past masters of intimidation and bribery. They will always whip those who try to fight them on the Jews' own terms.

But how will the Jews cope with the man who does not fear them and is willing, even glad, to give his life in order to hurt them? What will they do when a hundred good men rise up to take Bob Mathews' place? Where will they find enough secret police to protect them?

It is a hard truth to face, but America has gone far beyond the point where its problems might have been overcome bloodlessly or with relatively little sacrifice. The evil which has spread across the land can still be destroyed, but only by men like Robert Mathews -- only when enough such men have been awakened and have said to themselves, as he did: "I have no choice. I must stand up like a White man and do battle."






















Friday, October 14, 2011

Dr. Pierce on where to draw the line in tolerating and forgiving liars

An Ethical Question

An editorial from the National Alliance Founder and Chairman to his membership in that organization's internal monthly Members BULLLETIN, July, 1995:

Several recent issues of Spotlight, a weekly tabloid for patriotic-conservative readers which is published in Washington, DC, have carried direct and indirect attacks on me, alleging that I am an enemy agent of some sort. Specifically, the Spotlight hinted a couple of months ago that I am an "FBI asset," and in the July 17 issue it expressed the belief that I am a "government ringer — probably an FBI informant."

These attacks are a renewal of a 24-year-old campaign of defamation against me by Spotlight's owner, Willis Carto. The campaign began in 1971, shortly after I founded the National Youth Alliance. At that time I was being helped by a former employee of Carto's, Louis Byers, and Carto thought it prudent to destroy the fledgling organization rather than let is grow into a competitor. He was concerned that Byers would teach me the fund-raising techniques learned while in Carto's employ and would help me enlist some of Carto's financial supporters as supporters for the National Youth Alliance.

The recent outburst of libels in Spotlight is in response to the informal relationship which exists between the Alliance and the Institute for Historical Review/ Noontide Press, with which Carto was affiliated until his ouster a couple of years ago: National Vanguard sells a number of books published by the IHR and Noontide Press, and Noontide Press advertises one book (my Gun Control in Germany, 1938-1945) published by us. Carto has been engaged in an extremely bitter fight with IHR/Noontide Press ever since he was given the boot, and his tactic is to attack anyone he regards as an ally of his enemy.

Now, there are honest disagreements aplenty among persons who are opposed to the present government in Washington and its policies, and all too often these disagreements lead to public fights. The Alliance's ideology and/or policies are different from those of many individuals and organizations with whom we maintain friendly liaison or even collaborate actively. In such cases we try to keep our differences out of the way and focus on the things which can be mutually beneficial, and we have been able to avoid public fights.

The attacks on me by Carto are not the result of any honest disagreement. They are conscious, deliberate, and unprovoked lies. Carto uses lies as a tactic in fighting those he perceives as enemies, as well as in attracting donations from those who support him.

***********************
"'All's fair in love and war'...Deceiving an enemy in time of war never has been regarded as reprehensible."
***********************

It has been said, "All's fair in love and war," and indeed most of us feel no obligation to be truthful in dealing with those who are trying to destroy our race. If a lie will gain us an advantage in this war, then we feel obliged to lie. Deceiving an enemy in time of war never has been regarded as reprehensible. At the same time, however, most of us believe that lying in other circumstances — merely to gain a personal advantage, for example — is dishonorable.

Where does one draw the line between justifiable and unjustifiable lying? Carto could say that his lies about me are justified, because he is fighting for the survival of his various enterprises, including Spotlight, and Spotlight is an important asset in the war against America's enemies. He could even justify the lies in Spotlight intended to bring in large donations from its readers in the same way: fooling suckers in order to get donations from them is justified, as long as the donations are used for a good purpose, such as publishing more issues of Spotlight.

This sort of justification is troubling. More troubling are the people who don't even worry about justifications. Carto may be a crook, they say, but he is doing good, and so we should not speak ill of him. And, to give the devil his due, Carto has done some good things. He was the principal mover in launching the IHR 17 years ago, for example, even though he now stands accused by the IHR's directors of embezzling more than $7,000,000 in IHR funds and may end up in prison on that charge. When he was kicked out of the IHR, he used his money to launch a competing revisionist publication, The Barnes Review, which is an admirable little magazine.

***********************
"Where does one draw the line between justifiable
and unjustifiable lying?"
***********************

Spotlight, (Now American Free Press) Carto's principal asset, is not one of the good things he has done. Its appeal is primarily to elderly cranks — and to a certain number of younger cranks as well. It caters to the credulous and the naive, to readers who like to be titillated with what is billed as "inside" information about the "Conspiracy." It has carried numerous articles about miraculous cancer cures suppressed by the greedy medical establishment, about miraculous energy sources suppressed by the greedy oil companies, and about miraculous schemes for keeping one's savings away from the greedy Internal Revenue Service. It always has had a low regard for the truth and a sure instinct for the issues that would make elderly, conspiracy-minded conservatives reach for their checkbooks.

Despite its National Enquirer flavor — or perhaps because of that — Spotlight has become the most widely read periodical in the conservative, anti-government camp. That fact does not speak well for the powers of discrimination of the anti-government forces. Fortunately, not many Alliance members are Spotlight readers. Nevertheless, some are, and so the case of Willis Carto serves as a relevant illustration of the ethical question with which we should be concerned: Should lying of the sort in which Carto engages be tolerated or forgiven, because he is approximately on "our side"? More generally, should behavior of the sort which would not be tolerated by honorable men in a civilized society be tolerated under our present circumstances?

************************
"Among our ancestors, long before Christianity, thieves and liars were not tolerated, because lying and stealing destroyed the bond of trust between neighbors..."
************************

I believe that it should not. I put a short section in our Membership Handbook about the amoral person. I believe that most members agree with me on this question in a general way. Nevertheless, I have seen too many examples of amoral behavior on the part of people who claim to be on "our side" — and not just Carto. There seems to be a feeling that because our society is falling apart all the bonds of right behavior have been loosened, and that we aren't obliged to judge people by the same strict standards which prevailed a century ago. We see so much crookedness on the part of politicians, bureaucrats, and the media today that our moral sense becomes numbed.

Right behavior did not develop among our people simply for its own sake or for religious reasons. It developed because it was conducive to our survival and progress as a people. Among our ancestors, long before Christianity, thieves and liars were not tolerated, because lying and stealing destroyed the bond of trust between neighbors which was necessary for a strong community. Communities which tolerated such behavior perished, and those which did not survived and prospered, on the average. That's how we developed our sense of right behavior in the first place.

If we are to continue building an Alliance strong enough to overcome its enemies, we must not tolerate anyone among us who lies or steals, either in time of peace or in time of war.

W.L.P.