Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Whose Values Shall Rule?

"Whose Values Shall Rule?" is a commentary by Dr. William Pierce which appeared in the National Alliance Bulletin of June, 1980.

Life rune flag
Dr. Pierce addressed a meeting of the Ridgewood Group, at the Estonian House in New York City, on May 27. He had been asked to speak especially about his book, The Turner Diaries (for which the nom de plume Andrew Macdonald was used). He spoke for about 45 minutes, first pointing out that the purpose of the book is neither to entertain nor to present a plan for a revolution. The book, he said, is intended solely to serve as a medium for certain ideas, some expressed implicitly and others explicitly. Those ideas deal with human behavior, motivation, and values. The following material has been excerpted from the latter portion of Dr. Pierce’s New York address:

* * *

Whose Values Shall Rule?
by Dr. William Pierce

IT IS IMPORTANT for us to understand that one person is not a Methodist and another a Catholic and a third a Marxist as the result of any rational process -- at least, not in the vast majority of cases, although there are individual exceptions.

That is, one is not a Methodist because one sat down and studied the Methodist doctrine, compared it with other doctrines, and decided that Methodism was what made the most sense. One is a Methodist, generally, because one’s parents and neighbors were -- that is, out of an entirely unreasoning desire to conform, to believe what one perceives that one is expected to believe. John Wesley undoubtedly was an exception to this rule, but very few other Methodists have been.

There has been strong resistance to accepting the implications of this important facet of human behavior. People seem to want to believe that we are all quite rational, when most of us aren’t. For our purposes, the implication of the fact that most people are governed far more by herd instinct than by reason is this: Insofar as the general public is concerned, truth cannot fight its own battles. As long as Norman Lear, the Jewish television producer, has more kilowatts for reaching the public than we do, it will be his view of history and, more important, his view of what is moral rather than ours which will be generally accepted and which will govern the political process.

This means that we can realistically expect our educational efforts to be effective with only a rather small minority of our fellow citizens. We cannot expect to make a partisan for our cause out of the average man or woman who perceives, even unconsciously, that our cause is not popular, no matter how many books or leaflets we may coax that person into reading. We win only two types of people: One is the person who is already alienated to a certain extent from Mr. Lear’s world and does not fully feel himself a part of the herd to which Mr. Lear is preaching with his cleverly designed television sermons. Unfortunately, in many cases people are alienated for reasons which are entirely or partly wrong from our point of view. That is why protest movements and revolutionary movements always pick up lots of defective people. On the other hand, alienation is certain to remain a growth industry, as they say, and one can hope to see many more essentially healthy people becoming alienated from the mainstream in the years ahead.

The second type of person we are able to win with an educational effort at this time is the person who is one of those rare exceptions to the general rule, a person who is strongly motivated by ideas as well as by instinct, and who has already been groping in our direction. Our effect with such a person is primarily to help him clarify his ideas and to lead him more rapidly to their logical conclusions.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Drugs and American Youth

An insightful commentary on the long-term damaging effects of alcohol and illegal drugs on our society.


by Dr. William L. Pierce

TEN YEARS AGO the student who used illegal drugs was likely to be looked upon by his peers as both a criminal and a person with serious personal problems -- as was more often than not the case.

Certainly, there were young, White drug users before 1960. But, outside a few communities, they were a rarity. Marijuana was almost as scarce on most university campuses as was heroin.

It is, in fact, quite difficult for today's average undergraduate to imagine just how drastically student attitudes toward drugs have changed in the few short years during which drug usage has passed from a curiosity to a fact of everyday life.

Most Significant Development

Other things -- attire, jargon, sexual attitudes -- also underwent a fairly radical transformation during the 1960s. But the vast and sudden increase in the use of drugs by young people easily stands as the most significant social development, not only of the last decade but of our generation. If that statement sounds like an exaggeration now, it certainly will not a year from now, so rapidly is the phenomenon still developing.

The editor should confess at this point, other than a few puffs of pot to see what the stuff tastes like, he has never had any drug “experiences.” For that matter, he has never smoked tobacco and his alcoholic consumption is limited to an occasional beer.

Thus, he cannot write on some drug-related matters with the same sort of authority a member of Alcoholics Anonymous can boast of when warning others against demon rum, for example.

On the other hand, he is by no means a total outsider to the drug scene. He has many friends who use, or once used, pot regularly, just as he has many friends who use tobacco and alcohol.

Drugs a Social Evil

One of the four basic points of the NYA [National Youth Alliance, predecessor to the National Alliance -- Ed.] program states our unequivocal opposition to illegal drugs and to those who promote their use. This opposition is by no means based on religious or “moral” considerations or on any sort of “conservative” foot-dragging where something new and different is concerned.

Saturday, July 11, 2015

Fundamentals for Victory


A Cosmotheist lecture given by Dr. William Pierce on October 24, 1976 at the office of the National Alliance in Arlington, Virginia

by Dr. William L. Pierce

I DON'T THINK I need to convince anyone here that what we are trying to do is very difficult. It is obvious from our own experience of the last few months that it is not easy to build up our numbers even to those needed for a truly viable organization, which I talked about a few weeks ago. It is not easy to bring new people to our meetings in the numbers we would like.

The difficulties we experience tempt some of us, I am sure, to place less emphasis on the fundamental Truth we express in our Affirmation and to turn instead toward gimmicks of one sort or another. If people will not listen to our Truth, some of us may think, then we should talk to them about things they are interested in: income taxes, school busing, pornography, abortion, the right to keep and bear arms.

Now, there is no doubt that, right now, we could win a greater response from the general public if we stopped talking about our Purpose, our Truth and concentrated all our efforts on one of those topics. We would also be more successful, in a certain sense, if we were careful not to mention the Jews or to talk about race. We could win more people, in other words -- we could be a bigger organization -- if we would behave like conservatives or right wingers.

The reason is that most people have always been more interested in concrete, personal things like money, sex, or their own safety and comfort than anything else. And they have always been shy of anything controversial, anything that might be inconvenient, or even dangerous, for them to get mixed up with. That’s why conservatism has always been more popular that radicalism. And it’s also why the two major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, have always been even more popular. They appeal to the public’s basest instincts. They promise each segment of the population more of what most of them really want: more money, more comfort, more security.

Now, I’m sure no one expects us to try to out-Democrat the Democrats or out-Republican the Republicans. But we must also understand that, regardless of the difficulties it means for us now, we must not try to out-conservative the conservatives and right wingers either.

Because, while it is true that a conservative appeal, based on immediate self-interest, may win us more people in the short run, in the long run no appeal based primarily on self-interest can save us as a race. No ad hoc program, no matter how cleverly disguised, is going to achieve our long-range goals for us. We are not going to sneak a sack over the Jews’ heads under the pretense of an anti-busing or an anti-tax movement.

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Fear of the Smear


by Dr. William L. Pierce

THE ENEMIES of America and of Europe -- the enemies of our people everywhere -- have two guiding principles, two imperatives. The first is to continue backing the racially destructive programs now in place while introducing newer and even more destructive programs through the media and through government legislation. The second imperative is to prevent or neutralize any effective opposition to their programs: that is, to make it impossible for our people to defend themselves.

For example, just two of the racially destructive programs they already have in place are, one, keeping our borders open to immigrants from the non-White areas of the world and, two, doing everything they can to encourage miscegenation. Their immigration program, aimed at flooding White areas with non-Whites, is backed primarily through the government. Their miscegenation program, aimed at increasing the degree of racial mongrelization, is backed primarily by their mass media -- although they also use their influence among the Christian clergy and in the educational establishment to enlist the aid of the churches and the schools in pushing the acceptance of miscegenation among their White victims.

A majority of the people they intend to destroy are kept hypnotized by the mass media and offer no resistance. An independent-minded minority, however, are not entirely happy about our enemies' plans and insist on speaking out and sometimes taking other measures against the programs intended to destroy them. These dissidents who speak against our enemies and their plans are described by the media as "haters," as "extremists." Or, if talk turns to action, the dissidents are denounced as "terrorists." In most cases fear of these labels, fear of being called a "hater," is sufficient to keep the dissidents quiet. After all, most independent-minded people, just like the lemmings, are social creatures. They desire the goodwill of their neighbors. They don't want to be hated or reviled or even feared. They have families and jobs. They don't want their colleagues or coworkers to consider them odd or dangerous. They don't want their friends and acquaintances among the lemmings to shun them.

The media bosses, who are foremost among the enemies of our people, thus have a very powerful weapon in their ability to label arbitrarily as "haters" any dissidents bold enough to speak out against them or their policies or even against the consequences of their policies. Thus, when Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker -- or perhaps I should say, former Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker -- spoke out a few weeks ago, he immediately was labeled a "hater" by virtually all of the mass media. His comments about what a multicultural pigsty New York City has become were denounced as "hate speech." The unanimity of the media reaction to Rocker's rather mild comments gives us a clue that these ritual denunciations are a matter of deliberate policy rather than merely spontaneous and individual expressions of disagreement by the media bosses.

In other words, when I or some other dissident says something the media bosses find disagreeable, the disagreeable comment is unanimously labeled "hate speech." It's never a matter of some of them agreeing with it and some disagreeing; they all denounce it as "hate." I don't have to screw up my face and scream, "I hate you," in order to be denounced as a "hater." Almost anything I say is described in all of the mass media as "hate speech," simply because it is not Politically Correct, simply because it deviates from the party line. And believe me, there is a party line.

For example, my organization, the National Alliance, distributes a little index-card size sticker which has printed on it the words: "Earth's most endangered species: the White race -- help preserve it." That's all, except for our name and address.

Monday, July 6, 2015

The Corrupters

by Dr. William L. Pierce

MAY I be cynical for a few minutes? I hope you don't mind, but with the great democratic ritual of choosing a new President coming up in just a few days now, I can't resist the urge to make a few cynical comments. (ILLUSTRATION: Peter Sichrovsky, author of Born Guilty: Children of Nazi Families)

Of course, it's not just the current Presidential campaign which is the cause for my cynicism. Have you been watching the senatorial campaign in New York? Have you noticed how Mrs. Clinton and the Republican candidate, Rick Lazio, have been falling over one another in their eagerness to apply their lips to the posterior of the Jewish vote?

You certainly have seen what's been going on in Palestine during the past few weeks. Even on American television, which always censors out the most atrocious behavior of the Jews and tries to present the news in the light most favorable to them, the basic pattern has been clear enough: Palestinians have been throwing rocks at the Jews, and the Jews have been shooting and killing Palestinians. Nearly all of those killed over there have been Palestinians. The Jewish news media over here portray the conflict as "Israelis responding to Palestinian violence," in the sense of cops responding to robbers, but it's clear to anyone with eyes and a brain where most of the violence is coming from.

And it's clear how the violence got started again. The most hated Jewish politician over there, Ariel Sharon, deliberately provoked it. When he was in the Israeli military, Sharon used to send his troops into Palestinian villages and refugee camps to butcher unarmed civilians. That sort of behavior helped win him the votes of the raving-mad Orthodox Jews, who bob their heads up and down while praying at the "Wailing Wall" for their tribal god Yahweh to kill all the Gentiles and turn the world over to them, as he promised them 3,000 years ago.

Sharon is no longer an active-duty Israeli general, but he still knows how to win Jewish votes. He showed up at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem back at the beginning of the month with a huge contingent of armed bodyguards and Jewish secret police thugs, who chased away the Moslems who were praying in the mosque there. He swaggered around a bit, expressed his contempt for Moslems in general and Palestinians in particular, and left, but that was enough to infuriate Palestinians and provoke Palestinian boys into throwing rocks at Jewish soldiers, who responded by shooting them dead. Sharon's popularity among religious Jews immediately shot up.

During the fighting a Lebanese militia took three Jewish soldiers as prisoners, and the Jewish media over here immediately began talking about "kidnapped" Jews. When armed soldiers are captured by an opposing armed force in a combat situation, the proper term is "prisoners of war," not "kidnap victims," but the people who put the spin on our news figured "kidnap victims" would be more likely to get sympathy from Americans. They want us to feel sorry for the Israeli soldiers who are shooting Palestinian children rather than for the children who are being shot.

Thursday, July 2, 2015

A Closer Look at the Enemy

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

YOU KNOW, this world we live in is a complicated place. Behind every phenomenon we observe there are many forces at work, some of them obvious and some not so obvious. Trying to separate what's important from what's not important can be a confusing task. Every week when we discuss on this program what's happening in the world around us, and I try to explain events so that listeners can have a clear understanding of them, I must simplify the world. Clarity requires simplification. Understanding demands simplification. A useful explanation requires separating the important things from those which are less important and focusing first on the former. If I tried to explain every phenomenon in the world in complete detail, leaving out nothing, I would succeed only in confusing everyone, especially myself.

So if we want to understand the world we must simplify it. But we must be careful not to oversimplify, or our explanations lose their value. Occasionally my listeners accuse me of oversimplifying, or they are aware of some factor which I have not discussed in detail, and they suspect that I have left it out deliberately because it would contradict some theory of mine.

Here's an old example of the way oversimplification can lead to confusion: After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia early in this century, many anti-communists in America spread the word that a majority of the Bolshevik leaders were not Russians but were Jews, and they warned Americans that there also were many Jewish communists in America who posed a danger of subversion. This was back in the days before the exposure of the Rosenbergs and other communist-Jewish spies and conspirators in America. The Jewish media countered this warning with a deliberate campaign of confusion. They said, "Oh, you used to accuse of us being international bankers and capitalists and of subverting nations with our money. Now you accuse us of being international communists and of being a threat to capitalism. So which is it? Are we capitalists or are we communists? It can't be both, so make up your mind." This response was supposed to make their accusers look foolish, and with much of the public the trick worked.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that Jews are both capitalists and communists -- and neither. They are, first and last, Jewsand that really says it all, if one understands what a Jew is. The average Gentile thinks that a communist must be someone who is a believer in communist ideology, and a capitalist must be someone who is a believer in the ideology of free enterprise. It doesn't occur to him that for many Jews ideology is not something that one actually believes; it is simply a tool which one uses for deceiving non-Jews. The aim always is to acquire wealth and power, and whether one uses capitalist methods and ideology or communist methods and ideology for this purpose depends upon the situation. Regardless of the methods one uses, one remains a Jew. That's what is important.

And of course, most of the people who were trying to warn their fellow Americans about the dangers represented by the Jews in their midst didn't try to explain that, because most Americans simply wouldn't have understood; it would have been too complicated for them. So the anti-communists simply said: "Watch out! The Jews are communists or are sympathetic to the communists." And that was an oversimplification of the truth.

Here's a more recent example: I have warned Americans that Bill Clinton is a puppet of the Jews, an obedient tool of the Jews, and I have pointed out the fact that most of the important appointments he has made as President have gone to Jews: two Supreme Court justices, his entire foreign policy and national security team, and so on. And I have stated that the Jewish media got him elected in 1992 and then reelected in 1996.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Media Myths

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THE SUBJECT I've discussed most often is the dominant Jewish influence in the mass media of news and entertainment. I've spoken most often about this because it is the most important problem with which we must deal. It's also a subject on which I receive a lot of flak. One of the most common forms of flak is the objection that it doesn't matter. Sure, the Jews control the media, but it doesn't make any difference, critics tell me. They're just good businessmen, and they know how to run the media profitably. That's why they've gained control, and it's no worse than it would be if a bunch of Irishmen or Mormons were in their place.

I think that many of the people who tell me this don't actually believe it themselves. They just want to be Politically Correct, and it's Politically Correct to absolve the Jews of blame for anything. Even many of the people who are distressed about what Jewish media control is doing to our society don't want to identify that control as Jewish. The Baptists, for example, who have launched a boycott of the Disney Corporation because of the raunchy movies its Miramax films division has been turning out, refuse to identify either Disney boss Michael Eisner or the Miramax bosses Bob and Harvey Weinstein as Jewish. The Baptist protest is against immorality in films, they insist, not against the Jewish control of the film industry.

That's a bit like saying you're against syphilis but you have nothing against spirochetes. And it's not really honest, this determination to be Politically Correct. Political Correctness is based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in the place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit Politically Incorrect truths, has very serious consequences for all of us. If we refuse to talk realistically about the Jewish control of the mass media, we may as well give up on trying to do anything about the negative effects this Jewish media control is having on our society.

Let me give you a specific example of refusal to face a Politically Incorrect truth. Steven Spielberg has a new film out, Saving Private Ryan, and it's been getting a lot of attention by the reviewers. They say that the film is good because it is so realistic, because it gives such an honest portrayal of the Second World War. And of course, the film does show the blood-and-guts aspect of the war a bit more starkly than other films have. But honest it is not. It propagates the same lies about the Second World War that every film -- and I mean every film -- made by the Jewish film industry in Hollywood for nearly 60 years has propagated. And the reviewers, regardless of what else they say about these films, all repeat these same basic lies.

These lies are that the Second World War was a "necessary" war -- that is, that there was no way we could have avoided it -- and that it was a "good" war -- that is, a morally justified war. We were forced to fight Germany in order to protect America. We could not have stayed out of the war or fought on the other side, because that would have been immoral. The other side was evil. We fought against evil. By destroying Germany and Hitler we saved the world, Hollywood tells us. We saved freedom. We saved the world from slavery and tyranny. Hitler was an evil man, the most evil man who has ever lived, and with his evil SS troops he intended to enslave the world and destroy everything beautiful and good. But we stopped him. We saved America. We saved the world.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

The Importance of Leadership

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

EVERY TIME I fly somewhere for a meeting or a speaking engagement, I have to spend an hour or two in airports. That's a very democratic experience. One really sees the dregs of humanity in airports these days. It used to be that what bothered me most was seeing young White women with mongrel offspring in tow. What irritates me at least as much these days is the sight of young White males trying to look and act like Blacks. In every airport one sees these sorry specimens wearing hip-hop garb: backward baseball caps, baggy shorts or trousers, and clueless expressions on their faces. More and more one sees these slack-jawed cretins with their hair done in cornrows and pieces of metal through their lips or cheeks or nostrils.

I mentioned in a recent broadcast that I saw young Whites like this shuffling along the sidewalks of Philadelphia during one of my rare visits to that urban pesthole last month. The more White males I see garbed and groomed like Blacks, the less surprised I am to see White females leading by the hand the disgusting proof that they have been dabbling in bestiality. It's obvious that this sort of degeneracy is rapidly becoming much more widespread. When I did an interview with Rolling Stone magazine nearly two years ago, they sent along a German photographer who had his blond hair done in dreadlocks. I don't know why I should expect more of Germans than that. After all, they have had 57 years -- two generations -- of Judaeo-American forced education in democracy now. Turn on any TV receiver in Germany, and you will see much of the same poisonous, race-destroying filth from Hollywood that you see here. Young Germans watch Sumner Redstone's MTV just about as much as young Americans do. And in Germany as in America: monkey see, monkey do.

Last year the first-place photojournalism award for the best photograph by a newspaper photographer went to Mike Urban of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, for a photograph he took during the Mardi Gras riot there. I talked about that riot on this program last year. Gangs of Blacks ran through the mostly White crowd of Mardi Gras revelers, snatching purses, punching White women in the face, throwing them to the ground, and kicking them senseless, while Seattle's cops stood on the sidelines and refused to interfere, lest they be accused of "racial profiling." One young White man who tried to help a young White woman who had been knocked down and was being kicked by Blacks, was smashed in the head by a Black wielding a bottle and was killed. I repeatedly watched the newsreel footage of the riot, and it clearly was a Black-on-White riot.

But not entirely. There were some Whites among the rioters: "wiggers" I call them. That means "White niggers." They're the ones with the backward baseball caps. Mike Urban's prize-winning photograph, which the Seattle Post-Intelligencer did not have the courage to publish, is of a young White woman in the crowd who has been stripped naked by a gang of men and is being pawed and sexually abused by some of them while others constrain her. Most of the 20 or so men holding the naked girl down and pawing her are non-Whites: mestizos or Blacks. But in the photograph one can see clearly three or four White males -- wiggers -- grinning as they help the Blacks hold the struggling girl: a shocking and sickening portrait of the reality of multiculturalism.

What should be done with wiggers? In my view they are a thousand times worse than Blacks, and when the time of cleansing for America comes, they certainly will be dealt with first.

Monday, June 22, 2015

Aesop's Fables

by Dr. William L. Pierce

LAST WEEK I gave an interview to a news reporter from a television station in Charlotte, North Carolina. That's station WSOC, channel nine, Michael Eisner's ABC affiliate in Charlotte. The reporter and his cameraman drove up to my broadcast studio in West Virginia. My organization, the National Alliance, has been doing some recruiting in Charlotte, and someone had given a copy of one of our recruiting leaflets to the reporter at a Charlotte gun show. The reporter apparently had checked with his superiors at his television station and been told that the National Alliance is a "hate group," so he had come up to check us out and interview me.

The reporter was an enthusiastic young man of apparently normal intelligence, although clearly a bit trendy, as virtually all media people are. While we were talking off-camera, he told me that he is a recent graduate of Auburn University in Alabama. During the interview we toured our book department, where we stock the books sold by the National Alliance. He noted that we advertise many children's books, and he asked me why.

I told him that decent children's books are becoming increasingly difficult for parents to find in bookstores or libraries, because the multiculturalists have had a devastating effect on the publishing of children's books, insisting that every illustration in children's literature show a racially mixed group, that homosexuals be portrayed positively, that little girls be shown doing typically "boy" things and vice versa. In fact, I said, there has been a real effort afoot to keep traditional children's books away from children. The multiculturalists don't want White children to learn about their own history and traditions. They don't want White children to learn the values and attitudes that are inherent in the sorts of books that White children used to read in America before the Second World War. So the National Alliance searches for good children's books which the multiculturalists haven't gotten to yet and makes them available to parents who want their children to learn these traditional values.

Friday, June 19, 2015

Cowardice and Individualism

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

IN VARIOUS Free Speech articles I've spoken about our problems with Blacks, with Asian immigrants, with mestizos, and of course, with Jews -- especially about our problems with Jews, in deference to their demand always to be at the head of the line. Now, I'd like to talk about our problems with ourselves, with European-Americans: about what's wrong with White people.

Actually, this is such a huge subject that I can deal with only a tiny part of it. In the organization which I head, the National Alliance, I've been talking with members about two aspects of the White problem: White cowardice and White selfishness. Here are some of our thoughts.

If most White people weren't such terrible cowards, we wouldn't have problems with Blacks, mestizos, Jews, or anyone else today. We would have solved all of those problems long ago. There are plenty of people who agree with us about the type of society we want, the type of future we want for our people. There are many people who are disgusted with the rotten politicians and the rotten political system we have in Washington, people who are angry about what non-White minorities have done to our schools and our cities, people who are sick and tired of seeing television and the other mass media promote everything which is sick, perverse, and destructive. Many people don't feel guilty when the media tell them to feel guilty. There are plenty of people who want a clean, decent, White society for their children to grow up in. But these people are afraid to say or do anything. Many are terrified even to have other people know what they are thinking. Why is that? What are White people afraid of?

I understand the difference between prudence or reasonable caution on the one hand and cowardice or unreasoning fear on the other hand. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice is. Imagine, for example, that you work in an office under a Jewish supervisor. You are close to retirement, and you can't afford to lose your employment. Your Jewish boss is a big supporter of Clinton, affirmative action, "diversity," homosexuality, feminism, racial mixing, and every other thing which is bad for our people. And the boss always is pushing these things, is making favorable comments about these things, around you and your fellow employees. He's always saying that Bill Clinton is a wonderful man and that all of the people who are attacking him are just a bunch of bigots who hate him because he has been so good to Israel. Every time your Jewish boss says something like that you bite your tongue and keep your mouth shut, even though you want to tell him what you really think. You consider the consequences to yourself and to your family if you speak out, and you decide that it's not worth it. So you grit your teeth and remain silent. What does that make you? Well, certainly you are no hero, but under the circumstances I don't think it would be fair to call you a coward either. You are just a prudent person.

The times we are living in tend to make cowards of us all. We are pressed to make moral compromises every day, and it becomes a habit. Certainly, if a man today tried to act honorably in all things according to the standards for honorable behavior 100 years ago he would very likely find himself in prison in short order. For all practical purposes we are living like a conquered people under an enemy occupation government. We adjust our behavior in order to get by without a lot of trouble. We do not act heroically, because heroism is out of fashion. We try to do what is prudent rather than what is heroic.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

A White World


by Dr. William L. Pierce

IN these talks I have with you every week, I try to choose topics of current interest, topics that are in the news -- or that should be in the news -- because it's important for all of our listeners to understand that the things we talk about in these broadcasts are real and relevant, and they demand our attention now; they are things that listeners can check on for themselves if I tell them where to check. Even when I choose to talk more about ideas than about current news, I try to tie the ideas into events, either current or historical, in order to keep listeners aware that the ideas are relevant, that they have consequences in the real world.

I want everyone always to have in mind that the essence of these broadcasts is not entertainment, and it's not even education: it's survival. It's our whole future. It's the continuation of the process of life that began on this earth hundreds of millions of years ago and is now on the brink of disaster. The reason I make these broadcasts is to move people -- our people -- to accept responsibility for where the process is going, to help pull it back from the brink, to deal decisively with those people and policies which pushed it to the brink, and then to help guide it back onto an upward path again.

But sometimes listeners tell me, "Yes, that's important, but please tell us more about the direction in which we should guide things after we overcome the enemies of our people and repair the damage done by their policies. Show us the path ahead. Tell us a little about where we want to go after we are able to plan the type of world we want."

Well, I believe that's a reasonable request. I don't like to build castles in the air. I don't like to spend too much time planning things that we aren't yet able to implement. But I think it is reasonable to think sometimes about the future even beyond those things that we have the power to implement now. What sort of world do we want to strive for? Let's dream about that for just a few minutes today.

We cannot, of course, ever return to the past, but we can compare various periods in the past with each other and with the present in order to make decisions about institutions and lifestyles, decisions about social structures and fashions and types of behavior. Different people, of course, will judge the past differently, will make different decisions about which institutions and lifestyles in the past were desirable and which were not. For example, I have one occasional listener who thinks that it would be good to return to a time when his church ruled everything, and witches and heretics were burned at the stake by the thousands. And he thinks that I should be the first to be burned.

So the type of world we strive for depends upon our values, upon what we think is important. The person who believes literally in a Biblical picture of heaven and hell and whose primary motive is to avoid being cast into the fires of hell will want a different sort of world from the completely self-indulgent person whose ideal is to be able to amuse or entertain himself in any way he chooses, and neither of these people is likely to be attracted to a vision of a world that is best for our race. So before we begin describing our ideal world, let's be sure about what is really important to us. I can only tell you now what I believe is important, but I think that many listeners will agree with me and so will share my vision of the sort of world for which we should strive.

I am a very race-conscious person, a person who is very conscious of the profound spiritual and psychical differences between my race and other races, and the world I want is one that provides the maximum scope for the spirit of my people to soar, a world that matches their inner nature, a world in which they are at home and can roll up their sleeves and go to work as if they were remodeling their own castles, a world in which they can unleash the full power of their imagination and of their creative spirit, a world in which the Faustian spirit of my people can exult in its striving to find and conquer new worlds, to perform noble deeds, and, in the words of Tennyson's Ulysses, "to follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought."

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Right and Wrong: "Diversity" Destroys Morality


by Dr. William L. Pierce

WHEN I was a little boy I was taught that it is bad to lie. I was taught that it is always better to tell the truth, even if that sometimes puts one at a disadvantage. For example, if my mother asked me, "Bill, did you eat all of the cookies in the cookie jar?" and I had done it, I knew that I was supposed to say, "Yes, mother, I did," even though it might mean a whipping for me. (ILLUSTRATION: Just as morality -- correct, group-survival-enhancing behavior -- is necessarily different for the wolf and the hyena, so also is it different for different races of men, exemplified here by the European and the Jew.)

I believe that I was taught this pretty well, because I always felt guilty, I felt very bad, when I lied to avoid some unpleasantness or to gain some advantage. Actually, I usually told the truth, and as I grew up I admired and respected people who had the courage to be truthful when it was disadvantageous to them.

But as I grew up I also learned that life is a complicated business, and that sometimes it isn't easy to decide what is right and what is wrong. For example, suppose one is in a war: is it right to lie to the enemy? In a war there will be situations in which the disadvantage in telling the truth is not just to oneself, but also to one's people. Should one put the obligation to tell the truth above the obligation to protect one's people?

I thought about that one for a while. I decided that while there may have been, in the past, wars between gentlemen, where being truthful even to the enemy was the right thing, being truthful to the sort of enemies one was likely to encounter today could not be justified.

That decision moved me onto the rather slippery terrain of situational ethics. After the Second World War a lot of people skated pretty far out onto the thin ice of that terrain: they decided that what is right and what is wrong has no absolute meaning at all, that it all depends upon the situation one finds oneself in at the moment. They went much further in that direction than I was willing to go. As a practical matter, they abandoned ethics altogether, although they probably wouldn't agree with that assessment. From my point of view, for right and wrong to have any meaning in the moral sense, they must have the same meaning at least most of the time. One might be justified in making occasional rare exceptions -- in time of war, for example -- but most of the time one must have ethical rules which don't change to suit the situation or the crowd one happens to be with at the moment. If one has one set of rules when one is with Christians, a different set when one is with Jews, a third set when one is in the company of homosexuals, different sets of rules for Democrats and Republicans, and so on -- then from my point of view one should be looked on as an unprincipled or unethical person.

Monday, June 8, 2015

Thoughts on Recruiting, Part Two


by Dr. William L. Pierce

WHAT TYPE OF person does the Alliance seek as a member?

It has been said often in these pages that there are many different types of persons in the Alliance, ranging in age from 18 to 93, in educational level from high school dropout to PhD, and in economic status from unemployed and destitute to quite wealthy. In view of this diversity it might seem that it would be difficult to define a "type" as the desirable membership prospect. Nevertheless, some things can be said on the subject to good effect. And they need to be said, because otherwise individual members will form their own ideas -- diverse ideas -- as to who should be in the Alliance and who should not, and as to the type of person to whom the Alliance should direct its appeal and the type of image the Alliance should project for that purpose.

It is natural for people to judge others by themselves and to seek others of their own kind. But this tendency limits the amount of diversity which can safely be tolerated in any organization. On the one hand, if diversity is too narrowly limited, then one may have an organization whose members feel a strong bond of comradeship, but whose numbers will always be too small for effectiveness; on the other hand, too much diversity -- an effort to bring too many different types of people together for the sake of large numbers -- may result in an organization without internal cohesion.

In the case of the Alliance, the argument has been made that a large degree of diversity can safely be tolerated, because cohesion is provided by the shared purpose of racial survival and racial progress. As long as each member keeps this purpose foremost in his mind and believes that other members are doing the same, then differences in attitudes on other matters, in lifestyles, and in socioeconomic status will not be important. That is the ideal; unfortunately, it does not always match reality.

In reality, the strains caused by different perceptions of what an Alliance member should be are continually manifesting themselves. A few examples will illustrate this problem.

Many -- perhaps most -- members are fervent admirers of Adolf Hitler and his movement in Germany during the 1920-1945 period, and their admiration carries over into a more general Germanophilia. A few members, however, do not share this admiration, and they believe that any public display of it (as in articles in National Vanguard dealing with the Second World War) is harmful to the Alliance's recruiting effort. This difference of opinion already has resulted in a heated debate among members of the Southeast Florida Unit.

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Thoughts on Recruiting, Part One

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THE WEST is being destroyed as much by sick, criminal, or irresponsible Whites who take their orders from Jews, attempt to curry the favor of Jews, or are under the influence of Jewish ideas as it is by the Jews themselves. Without the active collaboration of millions of White men and women, the Jews would be impotent. This self-evident fact raises several questions relating to recruiting for the Alliance — and, ultimately, to ethical behavior for members.

For example, how does one judge the fitness for membership of a former collaborator? What degree or type of collaboration puts a person forever beyond the pale? What mitigating circumstances should be taken into consideration?

Before answers to these specific questions are attempted, the scope of the problem should be set forth clearly. First, in a strict sense nearly every White person is a collaborator to some degree. There are very few people in the West who have put moral principles first in their lives and have refused absolutely every form of collaboration.

Nearly everyone is at least a passive collaborator — that is, he fails to take those actions which reasonably could be expected to thwart the Jews in one way or another: He fails to find out which merchants and other businessmen in his community are Jews, so that he can avoid buying their goods and services, thereby withholding money from the Jewish community which would increase its political strength; he fails to speak out forcefully against false teachings in the schools in his community, thus allowing the Jews to spread their poison unchallenged; in general, he fails to keep always in mind that a race war to the death is in progress, and that he is a soldier in that war.

Clearly, if every passive collaborator were judged unfit for Alliance membership, the pool of potential recruits would be extremely small. Yet, passive collaboration is not a minor sin. If all passive collaboration were halted, the West immediately would become an untenable theater of operations for the Jews, despite all the efforts of their active collaborators.

The problem of passive collaboration is a difficult one. It is not easy to avoid some types of collaborations when one lives in enemy-controlled territory. Paying taxes to the U.S. government certainly is a form of collaboration, for example, as is serving in the U.S. armed forces, even as a draftee. And, it should be noted, there may be circumstances which make some forms of passive collaboration justifiable. The National Office, for example, does not usually take into consideration whether or not a company from which it purchases office supplies or books is owned by a Jew. Is this justifiable collaboration? Would the same behavior be justifiable on the part of a White person not actively opposing the Jews? What’s the difference? The whole question of how one should behave in enemy-controlled territory is an interesting ethical problem, which should be explored at a latter opportunity.

Monday, June 1, 2015

Creating a New Society


by Dr. William L. Pierce

A WONDERFUL THING about the philosophy which governs our movement is that it is very simple -- it is completely summed up in our Affirmation -- and yet it is all-inclusive. It tells us everything we need to know. Everything is derived from it.

It tells, for example, what kind of society we want to build in place of the present one. That is, it gives us the basic principles which must govern the building of a new society. Since our principles are fundamentally different from those governing any society now on this earth, then our society will also be fundamentally different from those which exist today.

Today, societies are categorized in various ways. A common way is according to which members of the society have the power. Thus, we have monarchical society, ruled by a single person, who usually inherits his power. And we have plutocracy, or a society ruled by the wealthiest members. And we have technocracy, or a society ruled by the technicians who keep the wheels of industry and commerce going. And gerontocracy, a society ruled by its elders. And democracy -- or monocracy -- society ruled, supposedly, by everyone. And, finally, anarchical society, in which, supposedly, no one has power, no one rules.

Another common way of categorizing today’s societies is according to the type of economic system which prevails. Thus, we have communistic societies and capitalistic societies, as just two examples.

But note one thing about all these different types of society. None are defined with respect to any purpose. They are defined according to which members control them, defined according to the mechanics of their operation, but none have any purpose -- other than the common purpose of all societies, of course -- namely, the static, day-to-day purpose of providing a framework within which its members function, presumably with more efficiency and greater security than they could function without a society.

Of course, the societies with which we are familiar may set goals for themselves: building an irrigation project, for example, or conquering a neighbor, or eliminating smallpox, or increasing the average wage. But these goals do not determine, in any fundamental way, the structure of the society. They do not provide a purpose which determines the essential nature of the society. A monarchical society or a democratic society which sets out to build a system of dams and canals or to take some land away from the members of another society remains monarchical or democratic, as the case may be.

Friday, May 29, 2015

Cosmotheist Ethics


by Dr. William L. Pierce

THE PERSONAL CONDUCT of those who strive to follow the One Path is based on three foundations: Knowledge, Discipline, and Service.

First comes knowledge -- an understanding of the nature of man, of his relationship to the Whole, and of his purpose. Then must come action based on that understanding; we must put our knowledge to work. We must let it direct us in our daily lives, so that we live in accord with our ordained purpose, so that we serve the ends intended for us by the Creator.

Knowledge is our guide, and service is our object, but discipline gives us the indispensable means. Discipline allows us to actualize the potential strength which our knowledge gives us. Without discipline, our knowledge will remain sterile, our actions weak and ineffectual.

The gaining of knowledge, the attainment of understanding, is a lifelong process, but we have already taken the first steps toward it in the last six months. Let us now consider briefly the proper discipline for translating that knowledge into action in our daily lives.

In the most general sense, the disciplined man or woman is a person whose conscious intellect exercises the fullest possible control over his body and its subconscious needs and desires as well as over the controllable circumstances of his life. In contrast, the completely undisciplined person is a slave to his subconscious nature and to events around him. In view of what we have already learned, then, it is clear that a disciplined person, as the bearer of a higher degree of consciousness than an undisciplined one, is further along the One Path.

But we need more than generalities. We need to fill in all the details of the structure, of the means, which lies between our guiding knowledge and the object of that knowledge. We need a detailed discipline which will allow us to translate our knowledge into service.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Following the Upward Path


by Dr. William L. Pierce

LAST MONTH we received the first part of the answer we have been seeking. It did not seem to tell us much, but in reality it contained the essence of everything else we will learn. Let us think about it for a moment before we go on.

What we are seeking to discover is man's purpose, both individually and collectively. Throughout a billion years of evolution the answer to our question has slowly taken shape and has been written by God on our souls, just as a different answer to an analogous question has been formed in the deepest part of the being of every living creature -- and the non-living as well. (That is, the answers are different in detail, but they are all the same in a more general sense.)

In the words of one of our sisters in spirit [Savitri Devi -- Ed.], the sum of all these answers is the total expression of "that mysterious and unfailing wisdom according to which Nature lives and creates: the impersonal wisdom of the primeval forest and the ocean depth and of the spheres in the dark fields of space."

To each creature and to each race of creatures the answer assigns a role and determines its relationship to the Whole. We can have only imperfect knowledge to the answers which apply to other creatures, to other races, for, although our science can tell us much, we cannot see into their souls.

What is the role of the Negro? It is evident that for the last few hundred thousand years, at least, the Negro’s message has, unlike ours, told him to stop and rest. Does it also tell him that, like so many other creatures in the past, his role is finished? Perhaps we will know later.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Thoughts On Radicalism

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

ABOUT A YEAR ago the Alliance had as a supporting member one of the wealthiest women in America. One day, however, the National Office received a letter from her which said, in effect, “I’m beginning to believe from some of the things in your paper that the National Alliance is not a patriotic organization at all, but is radical and wants to destroy America. Please cancel my membership immediately.”

The woman was probably a dyed-in-the-wool conservative and couldn’t have been salvaged in any event. In many cases, however, people who have been accustomed to thinking in conservative terms can be illuminated. This little essay is intended to throw some light on the difference between the conservative and radical outlooks and to make it clear why the Alliance is, indeed, a radical organization. It is assumed from the beginning, of course, that every Alliance member understands that the word “radical” says nothing whatever about the “rightness” or “leftness” of a person’s views, but only about the degree to which those views are rooted in fundamental principles.

Consider first a few concrete illustrations: When the stock market takes a nosedive, most conservatives will groan, and most Alliance members will chortle. When food prices take an especially sharp jump, the same reactions occur -- even though conservatives and Alliance members eat the same food, and both have to tighten their belts. And when a politician is caught taking bribes or cavorting with homosexuals or prostitutes, the conservative will grit his teeth and vow to vote against the rascal at the next election, while the true radical will smile and say, “Bless you, Senator.”

And if the conservative sees the radical’s reaction to these things, he will certainly not understand. He will say: “No patriot could be happy that we have a bad economy and a corrupt government. Therefore, radicals are not patriotic.”

The truth of the matter is that the Alliance radical no more wants an unstable economy and high prices than does the conservative, and the radical is actually far less tolerant of political corruption than is the conservative. But . . . the radical’s understanding is also far deeper than the conservative’s, and his values are probably different as well.