Sunday, September 23, 2012

Dr. Pierce Discusses Racial Leadership

From National Vanguard Tabloid, Issue No. 83, 1981:

Dear Editor:

Without intending to create a false drama, I think you are saying that at some time in the future, if I don't come around to your way of thinking, you'll see me offed for the good of the race. To tell you the truth, you make me a little nervous. In your June edition of NATIONAL VANGUARD, in the short article on Rabbi Meir Kahane (I rather admire his honesty and courage) and his effort to make sex illegal in Israel between Gentile men and Jewish women, you write that death would be a more appropriate punishment for that crime than the five years in prison suggested by the rabbi. I already feel the blade whistling down.

The confusion for me here is that I am told by almost everyone the same things that you seem to tell me; that if I don't agree with their way of thinking I'll be sent to my maker when I least expect it. The Soviets, the Maoists, the Fidelistas, the Khomeinites--and when push comes to shove, even the Republicans, Democrats, and Socialists, the Christians and Mosiems, the Right and the Left and those in between, the military juntas and those wonderful people's revolutionaries fighting them -- all seem to be saying the same thing. The one idea everybody seems to understand is that if the other guy's in your way he's intolerable, so you off him.

The article on Churchill [“Churchill: the War Criminal Who Got Away,” NATIONAL VANGUARD No. 82, p.11] describes with some accuracy how I feel not only about the Great British Leader but about the other Great Leaders of my lifetime: Stalin, Roosevelt, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Castro, Tito, Hitler, Mussolini, Che, Truman, Johnson. What is there to choose among those men? Each one was a failed man, a mass killer, and a disaster for the people he pretended to serve.

The great issue of race relations might be mightily illuminated in these United States if our citizens would simply stop following their leaders, obeying the laws of their leaders, groveling before their leaders. It's our leaders who insist alien races have the right to cross private property, our leaders who build the highways from our frontiers to the hearts of our cities and refuse to see even their own laws enforce, our leaders who tax us under threat of imprisonment to sustain the alien races, our leaders who issue permits and thus control all media and educational institutions, our leaders who create the bureaucratic swarming that infests every aspect of public and private life in the land.

I have no reason to believe that there is not something unclean in the mere desire to see oneself as a leader with institutionalized (governmental) power over others. There is certainly something unclean about those who have it now and those who don't but are trying to get it. Where are the exceptions? How can I know who they are? I think I've had my fill of leaders. I've also had my fill of those who lust after being leaders.

 Los Angeles, CA

Editor's Reply:
Actually, you are creating a bit of false drama in your mind. The National Alliance is not aiming at enforcing a total ideological conformity on the population (assuming we had the means to do so) and killing everyone who has an independent thought, as you suggest. What we are trying to do is organize a carefully selected group of men and women of our race into an effective force for assuring a future which is both White and progressive. In order to assure such a future, one does not need to impose a mental lockstep on the White population. It is quite sufficient that the basic ideas and values which we are propagating become firmly rooted in the minds of the population, and that racially destructive activity be ended by whatever means are necessary.

The great bulk of the White population has always been ideologically neutral and even value-neutral; most people simply follow the herd without thinking about it, always yielding to the strongest force. When drugs, race-mixing, and permissiveness are held up before them as norms, that's the way they will drift. And when clean living, racial idealism, and self-discipline are the normative examples, they'll drift in that direction instead.

When drugs, race-mixing, and permissiveness are held up before
them as norms, that's the way they will drift. And when clean living,
racial idealism, and self-discipline are the normative examples,
they'll drift in that direction instead.

I am sure this will continue to be the case for many generations to come. One does not have to regiment the people; they regiment themselves, instinctively. What one has to do is provide the proper guidelines, so that the herd stays headed generally in the right direction. One must also keep out alien and destructive influence, such as the Jews, by whatever means are necessary.

As for the tiny fraction of the population capable of truly independent thought and judgement, what is essential is not a guillotine for deviationists, as you imply, but instead a healthy spiritual environment, full access to truth -- especially historical truth, which is the accumulated experience of the race -- and the existence of a clear set of guideposts pointing into the future. Each new generation of thinkers should not be required to reinvent the wheel, philosophically, although it might be a valuable corrective safeguard if a few in each generation do exactly that.

What a guillotine is required for is to cut out of the race truly diseased elements, so that they do not propagate. Taking a non-White as a mate, whether with the deliberate intent of miscegenation or simply as an act of egoistic irresponsibility, is clear evidence of disease. (I would indeed be sorry if your nervousness in response to seconding of Rabbi Kahane's proposal for outlawing sexual relations between Jews and Whites were based on personal guilt.)

What a guillotine is required for is to cut out of the race truly
diseased elements, so that they do not propagate. Taking a non-White as
a mate, whether with the deliberate intent of miscegenation or
simply as an act of egoistic irresponsibility, is clear evidence
of disease.

Being a free spirit, of course, has always entailed a certain danger, and I believe it is best that way, because it encourages caution and stability. The safe thing to do is to follow the herd. Don't insist on moving the guidelines about or setting a new example for others for frivolous reasons or through whimsical self-indulgence.

If you must strike out on your own, think first and then tread carefully -- and responsibly. A responsible and non-destructive free spirit need have no fear of the National Alliance or of a government based on our principles.

As for leaders, I must admit that I share some of your misgivings, although I hesitate to lump all leaders together, and I try to take a longer view of their effects on the race. You say that each of the leaders you list is a failed man and was a disaster for the race. It is true, of course, that all of them except Castro are dead, and that some of them came to violent ends. Death is an inevitable failure we must all face, regardless of our effect on the race, and I cannot agree with those who see Hitler and Mussolini (even Che) as less successful than Stalin, Roosevelt, and Tito, just because the former met death at the hands of their enemies, while the latter succumbed to psychological degeneration.

It may be worthwhile to remember that Jesus was in the former category, while the head rabbi of the sanhedrin which ordered his death was presumably in the latter. It may also be worth while to remember that even a couple of centuries after his death there was not much in the way of visible accomplishment on the part of Jesus, and he might well have been judged a failed man. After another 10 centuries had passed he seemed to have been quite successful indeed. As we continue to move into the post-Christian era in the next century, historians will undoubtedly revise their opinions of him again.

It seems to me that whether a leader is a success or not must be judged in terms of his ultimate effect on his race. At any finite time after his death we still cannot be certain of what the ultimate effect will be, but we should be able to make a better guess as time passes. My guess is that of all leaders you mention Hitler will ultimately turn out to be the most  successful, that his efforts will do more to advance our race to higher levels than any other.

Many Germans who remember the horrors of the Eastern Front and the democratic-communist Occupation in the postwar years might agree with your assessment that he was a disaster for his people, but I would refer them again to the example of Jesus: the horrors of the Christian religious wars between Catholics and Protestants in the Middle Ages exceeded even those of the rape of Berlin by the Red Army in 1945.

All those people had to die anyway, of course, if not in the battle of Stalingrad or tied to a stake in Seville, then at home in bed. What counts is the purpose served by their lives: the effect on their race they had. Which leaders failed and which did not may still be a matter for debate. What is certain is that there will be leaders in the future, just as surely as there have been leaders in the past. It is inherent in the nature of the race. Our responsibility is not to try to dodge this fact, but rather to do everything we can to insure that our future leaders are the right ones, who not only have leadership ability and drive, but who also share our values and are guided by our principles.

I cannot help but sympathize with you even as I argue against you. I began my own ideological life as a libertarian. Furthermore, my libertarianism was not based on theory, but my own inner nature.

I can remember well my reaction to ROTC, for example. Although I loved the weapons training and was quite interested in the study of military organization and tactics, I despised the close-order drill. I rebelled against brass polishing and boot shining. I found the regimented barracks life at ROTC summer camp, with its enforced “togetherness” around the clock, utterly disagreeable.

Nevertheless, I recognize regimentation as being an indispensable element of any effective army. I am sure that part of the blame for the decline in quality of the U.S. Army today must be laid to the de-emphasis on regimentation and discipline in recent years.

Our responsibility do everything we can to insure that our future
leaders are the right ones, who do not only have leadership ability
and drive, but who also share our values and are guided by
our principles.

In other words, just because regimentation is disagreeable to me does not mean that it is a bad thing. And just because you and I may instinctively rebel against restraints of any kind does not mean that restraints are bad for society as a whole. Society needs leadership, if it is to serve any worthwhile purpose. And even society's leaders need guiding values and principles, if their leadership is to be anything other than a disaster for their people.


Tuesday, September 4, 2012

The Jew Wants It Both Ways

From "Times & Manners" in National Vanguard magazine Issue No. 104, March-April 1985:

The enormous media flap over President Reagan's plan to lay a wreath in Germany's Bitburg military cemetery was entirely a Jewish creation. Jews raised the issue in the first place, and then they refused to let go of it. They wept, they made speeches, they demonstrated, they monopolized the media with the issue for weeks. They used it to bludgeon the Reagaan administration into going along with a huge new givaway of American tax dollars to Israel.

They tried to use it at the same time to milk a little more sympathy from the American public for the poor, persecuted Jews. And they were indignant when at least a few Americans -- and a few Germans as well -- displayed exasperation instead of sympathy or guilt.

First there was the story in the weekly German newsmagazine, Quick, about the Jewish pressure on Reagan to cancel his Bitburg visit. The German headline was "Macht und Stimme der Juden" ("Power and Voice of the Jews"), and the story went on to attribute the power of the "six million U.S. Jews" to their control of the news and entertainment media in the United States.

This straightforward statement of the facts brought a scream of outrage from the U.S. Jewish leadership. Rabbi Marc Tannenbaum of the American Jewish Committee characterized the Quick article as "classic anti-Semitism and classic scapegoating of the Jews."

Then there was the uproar when a Jewish news reporter peeped at Reagan speech writer Patrick Buchanan's note pad during a White House news conference about the Bitburg fuss and saw the words "[The President is] succumbing to Jewish pressure." More hysterical charges of "anti-Semitism" ensued. Actually, explained Buchanan, what he meant by his notes was that it was important to prevent the public from getting the idea that the President was succumbing to Jewish pressure, otherwise there might be a backlash against the Jews.

Now, where would the public ever get such an idea!

[T]he Bitburg affair was "leaving anti-Semites gloating and leaving Jews bruised and scared."

Miraculously, a fair number of Americans apparently did draw exactly the right conclusions from the Bitburg issue. One Jewish columnist for the Washington Post, Richard Cohen, lamented this fact after eavesdropping on a group of professors who were discussing the issue in the faculty dining room at Harvard University. Cohen was shocked, he wrote, to hear the words and phrases: "Jew," "Zionist," "Jewish lobby," "professional Zionist." The professors concluded that the "professional Zionists" had cooked up the whole controversy as a way of bringing pressure on the White House in order to win more concessions for Israel.

Cohen's bitter conclusion was that the Bitburg affair was "leaving anti-Semites gloating and leaving Jews bruised and scared. Bitburg excited the anti-Semitic imagination, and you don't have to go to Harvard to know it."

Tsk, tsk!

Ronald Reagan Brings Shame

From National Vanguard magazine No. 104, March-April 1985:

Ominous Tableau
By William L. Pierce

In the years of ancient Rome's long and painful slide into chaos and dissolution, the towering edifice of Roman law, built up during earlier centuries of greatness, maintained an impressive facade. But justice, like the other cornerstones of Roman society, participated in the general slide. State authority was still mighty, but the corruption of the times had transformed it.
The epitome of the change could be seen in a tableau which occurred on many a sunny afternoon in Rome's Colosseum: One gladiator, wounded and defeated, lay stretched out on the sand; another gladiator, victorious, stood over him with sword, spear, or trident poised, waiting for a signal from the imperial box that would mean life or death for his vanquished opponent. But the emperor himself waited before giving the thumbs-up or thumbs-down sign; he waited long enough to sense the mood of the crowd. Would the rabble in the stands cheer, or would they mutter angrily, if he condemned the defeated gladiator? Were they in the mood for blood or for mercy?
This was not an idle concern on the emperor's part. The gladiatorial games were, after all, part and parcel of the whole scheme of bread and circuses which kept the urban rabble more or less pacified and permitted the state to continue its slow decay in moderate tranquility, instead of being exposed to the dangers and uncertainties of popular unrest and upheaval.
How often we have the feeling these days that the various agencies of the U.S. government--in the judicial and legislative branches, as well as in the executive branch--operate according to much the same principle as the Roman emperors! Which is to say, they don't operate according to principles at all, but according to their momentary perceptions of what will elicit favor. And, unfortunately, favor most often is sought from a far more sinister source than the urban rabble.
There was a more recent tableau, which in its own way also epitomized the decay of a mighty nation and of the people who built that nation. It was a small thing, President Reagan's presentation, on behalf of the Congress, of a gold medal to professional Auschwitz “survivor” Elie Wiesel on April 19 in the White House. Of course, there was the awkward fact that during the previous week Wiesel had publicly and repeatedly criticized the President for his “insensitivity” in planning to lay a wreath in the German military cemetery at Bitburg. A man with any sense of personal dignity--and, certainly, a President of the United States with any sense of the dignity of his office--would have cancelled the presentation ceremony and delegated the White House janitor to hand Mr. Wiesel his Congressional medal at the back door, and then to tell him, in anatomical detail, what the President hoped he would do with it.
Dignity, however, has no place in democracy, and the ceremony proceeded as scheduled. Despite the embarrassing awkwardness of the situation, if there had been no television cameras present the whole episode would have had little significance. But the cameras were there, and the picture of what happened was broadcast to the world.

And what a picture it was! Instead of accepting the medal, saying “thank you,” and sitting down, Elie Wiesel seized the opportunity to give the President a lengthy lecture on the sufferings of the Jews and “the crime of indifference” to those sufferings by Gentile political leaders who were insufficiently sensitive to Jewish needs. There was the quintessential Jew, shaking his finger in the face of the Gentile President and sternly chiding him, while the latter sat silently, looking up at his lecturer with an expression like that of a whipped dog for 13 agonizingly long minutes! And the world watched it all.