Friday, February 20, 2015

Learning to Get Along

by Dr. William L. Pierce
I SPOKE recently with an Alliance member just back from a year in Zaire (the former Belgian Congo). He is a government scientist who is obliged to spend most of his time in rather odd places: African jungles, Arabian deserts, polar icecaps, and the like. While in Zaire he took advantage of every opportunity to avail himself of White company, which is all too scarce there, and he became intimately familiar with the attitudes and ways of thinking of the permanent White residents of that country. The story he told me about his experiences chilled my blood — the more so because it had the solid ring of truth and agreed with reports from other places, such as Rhodesia (now “Zimbabwe”). (ILLUSTRATION: Whites joining Blacks in cheering for anti-White policies in South Africa)
What our member said, in essence, is that the Whites in Zaire have “gone native.” After two weeks of work in the bush, our member would return to Kinshasa hungry for the sight of a White face. But the Whites, in the part of Kinshasa which used to be Leopoldville, outnumbered now more than 100 to one by Blacks, have managed to blend into the landscape so thoroughly that one can only pick them out of the Black crowds by the color of their skin; nothing else distinguishes them. One of them will pass another White on the sidewalk — perhaps the only other White he has encountered all day — without even a glance. To accost one of them is almost an affront; the attitude is, “Why should I stop to talk with you? You are nothing special to me.”

Thursday, February 19, 2015

The Consequences of Comfort

Commentary by Dr. Pierce in May 2000 National Alliance BULLETIN:
Until quite recently, unending struggle has been the condition of mankind. Through struggle we evolved. Struggle selected the strongest and most fit for survival and eliminated the unfit. A high birthrate together with a high death rate guaranteed progress.
Since the Neolithic Revolution the progress has been intermittent, however, with periods of ease, a lowering of the death rate, survival of the less fit, and decay alternating with periods of struggle, winnowing, and advancement.
 It is not just individuals who are more or less fit, fitness is a term which applies to nations as well. When the Romans encountered the Celts and the Germans more than 2,000 years ago, the Celts and the Germans were more fit individuals than the Romans, on the average – bigger, stronger, more daring – but the Romans were more fit collectively, because they were better organized and disciplined. For the Celts the consequences of indiscipline were disastrous; where they were not annihilated, they were pushed to the western fringe of Europe.
The German peoples eventually learned the value of organization and discipline  better than anyone else, and prevailed not only over the Romans but over the rest of the world as well. When they came to North America 500 years ago, they brought the habits of organization and discipline with them from Europe, and these habits served them well in conquering the new continent and building a civilization on it.
As America’s wealth grew, the struggle ceased. Not only were children who never would have survived on the frontier kept alive to breed more weaklings, but even those individuals with good genes lost their good habits and became less fit. The second half of the 20th century was a catastrophe in this regard. Wealthier than they had ever been before and therefore less obliged to struggle for their existence, White Americans quickly became less fit than ever before. Nor has loss of fitness only afflicted the wealthy, the growth of the welfare state has sheltered members of the working class from the consequences of failure and caused them to become less fit also.
The consequences of excessive wealth and ease and the 
feminization of child-raising has been a population of 
soft, morally crippled White Americans.
The loss of fitness has not been uniform. In some families tradition and strong leadership helped maintain good habits despite the wealth. More families, however, succumbed to the new fashion of permissive child-raising. Discipline became a bad word. Punishment was unheard of. The whole society became feminized, and the protection of children became a paramount concern; protection not only from physical dangers, but also from competition, from challenge, from disappointment, from need or even want, from the consequences of failure. Schools and other public institutions have collaborated with families in protecting and coddling children.
The consequences of excessive wealth and ease and the feminization of child-raising has been a population of soft, morally crippled White Americans. We have a generation of men who not only never had to kill another man in the struggle for survival, they grew up never having to pick up their dirty socks or actually having to work for a weekly allowance. As children they were never held accountable for anything. Everything they wanted has been given to them. They never have had to solve a problem or get themselves out of a tight spot. Many of them have no idea what hard work is. They have never been hungry, they never had to clean up their own messes, never had to suffer the real-life consequences of failure; mommy and daddy – or the welfare office – always have been there to bail them out. Concepts such as craftsmanship, performance, and responsibility are meaningless to them.
This moral debility has not affected all White Americans, of course. Those who still possess the capacity for self-discipline, for careful planning and hard work over an extended period, for enduring discomfort without complaint, for postponing gratification, and for self-criticism – a capacity expected in everyone a century ago but relatively rare today – have an enormous advantage over those who do not possess this capacity, or possess it to a smaller degree. And a similar statement can be made about organizations.
Understanding these things isn’t really helpful to the adult who has grown up without discipline or struggle, because the lack of capacity for self-discipline is almost impossible to remedy in an adult. In nearly all cases, it either is acquired early in life, or it is not acquired at all. Parents and prospective parents who understand these things, of course, are more likely to make correct decisions about raising children, if they still have the capacity to resist peer pressure and buck the trend toward even greater permissiveness.
The significance for us in all this is that if we are able to recruit selectively the better disciplined members of the White population, we can gain a significant advantage. This advantage may not be immediately apparent to a superficial observer under present conditions, but will become quite apparent when stress is applied. Which is to say, as long as the society remains tuned to the needs of the pampered and undisciplined population, the advantage of self-discipline may not stand out. When the support system breaks down, however, and the inept are left on their own – when the welfare checks stop coming, the electricity goes off, and the pampered suddenly become edible prey – those who have the habit of self-discipline will be far more likely to survive and prosper than those who don’t.
Likewise for organizations.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Dr. Pierce Discusses the Novel Hunter and 1989's Degenerative Trends

Letter to NATIONAL VANGUARD subscribers (Publication date: September 19, 1989)
by Dr. William L. Pierce

            We have a number of new books – and, for the first time, videos – listed in the accompanying catalog supplement. I believe they will be of interest to you.
            I’m sorry there isn’t a new issue of NATIONAL VANGAURD with this letter. It’s been six months since the last issue, and it may be another three months before a new issue is published. The problem is that I’m trying to finish something I believe will be very important, and I haven’t had time to work on NATIONAL VANGUARD, which ordinarily takes most of my time.
            I don’t like to announce things before they’ve been accomplished, but I feel I do owe all of our subscribers an explanation. Six years ago – back in 1983 – when I saw what a stir my first novel, The Turner Diaries, was causing and I realized I was reaching and influencing many people who never would read a serious article in NATIONAL VANGUARD, I decided to write a new novel. I already had an idea for one in my head, and I was sure I could do a better job with it than I had done with The Turner Diaries. So in November 1983 I wrote the first chapter of Hunter.
            Then I had to put the new book aside and take care of other matters. From time to time during the following five years I was able to return briefly to Hunter and write another chapter or two, but it was very difficult to find the time to write. Finally, at the end of last year, I had enough of the new novel written that I thought I could finish it in a few more months. My target was March 1989. Unfortunately, I couldn’t meet that deadline: I had to stop writing in order to get the March-April issue of NATIONAL VANGUARD finished, for one thing.
            By that time there were several books already written by other authors and waiting to be published as well. I had to decide what to do. For a long time I believed that the only way to reach most Americans, who have been softened by a lifetime of watching television, is through their recreational activity or viewing. They simply do not have the interest or attention span to read anything serious. It is necessary for us to develop our own entertainment media in order to get our message to them. The trouble is that a publisher ordinarily cannot break even financially when he publishes a novel which the controlled media will not review and the controlled chain bookstores and newsstands will not carry. Even with our specialized distribution channels, it might take us five or six years – perhaps even longer – to recover our investment when we publish a book. We just don’t have enough capital to do much of that kind of publishing.
            The exception to the rule was The Turner Diaries. It has sold so well that we were able to recover our investment in it almost immediately. Even after 11 years, it is still selling more than 300 copies a month. We need another hit like The Turner Diaries in order to subsidize the publication of other books which won’t sell as well. I believe that Hunter will be such a hit. It is every bit as hard hitting as The Turner Diaries, and it is much better written. Its message is extraordinarily powerful and will move many readers. I suspect it will provoke an even more hysterical reaction from the government and the controlled media than The Turner Diaries did.
            Considering all of these things, I decided this spring to put everything aside and finish Hunter. I’ve done 32 chapters and have about a dozen to go. I’ll have it in print in November, if there are no more interruptions. Then I’ll get your next issue of NATIONAL VANGUARD to you. If Hunter does well, that should encourage other authors to try their hands at novels which serve as a medium for our message. And then maybe we’ll be a step closer to having a viable book-publishing enterprise, with more people participating in the writing, the editing and the other work.
            I do hate to make you wait so long for the next NATIONAL VANGUARD, though, and so I want to use this opportunity to share a few thoughts with you and the situation in this country and how we ought to respond to it. These thoughts won’t be entirely new to regular readers of NATIONAL VANGUARD, but I believe recent events give them new urgency and make it worthwhile to restate them.
            There are a number of degenerative trends in America which should be cause for concern. I’ll talk about one which has been one my mind recently: it’s the gradual emasculation of America. And I’ll start with a news item that you may have missed. On June 14 the Department of Defense announced that the leading cause of death in the US Army is now AIDS. The public response to this announcement was negligible: no cries of alarm by news commentators, no speeches of outrage by politicians, not even threatening sermons by leading churchmen.
            This silence is, of course, understandable. AIDS is rampant in the Army because the Army is heavily overloaded with Blacks and members of other non-White minorities, who are especially susceptible to the disease. Furthermore, intravenous drug abuse and interracial sex, practices which tend to spread AIDS to the White underclass from which the armed services draw many recruits, are noticeably prevalent in the Army. No public figure would dare call attention to any of these things, except perhaps the drug abuse: he knows that if he did he would be greeted by a chorus of screams for his hide from minority-coddlers and the promoters of racial mixing.
            Unfortunately, this softness and squeamishness on the part of America’s leaders finds its counterpart among the country’s people. There is hardly a better recent example of this than the public’s ambivalent response to the current anti-gun campaign. The political argument of the gun confiscators is that life in America has become too dangerous. They cite statistics on murder, rape, and assault. They talk about heavily armed urban gangs and their violent ways. And blame it on the guns. The streets of American cities have become combat zones because people have guns. You would be safer if you surrendered your guns, they say.
            And far too many citizens believe them. Instead of reacting in a manly way to the threat of violence by checking to be sure that their powder is dry, so that they can defend themselves and their families if the need arises, they are opting to surrender. They are rolling over on their backs and baring their throats, saying in effect, please don’t hurt me; I’m unarmed.
            One can call a score of other recent examples to mind which illustrate the growing pusillanimity of our public officials and the dwindling collective virility of our fellow citizens. The news events of the last few month have showed it up as never before, but the fact is that during the past half century the spirit of America has been changing gradually from masculine-active to feminine-passive.
            Part of this change is the result of demographic shifts in the American electorate. For example, although women have been voting in the United States for nearly 70 years (since the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in 1920), their influence in elections has increased substantially in recent years. They now cast approximately ten per cent more votes than men in Presidential elections, and they are less likely to vote the way their husbands do than their mothers were. Likewise, the participation of substantial members of Blacks and other non-Whites in the electoral process is a phenomenon which has developed since the Second World War.
            It is fair to say that voting by both non-Whites and women, on the average, has an emasculating effect on governmental policy in the United States. Which is to say that both groups tend to be more liberal in their voting habits – that is, more likely to vote for political candidates who favor confiscating firearms and giving more “rights” to minorities – than White male voters. Stating this differently, if the franchise were restricted to White males over the age of 30 who owned their homes and fathered at least one child, governmental policy undoubtable would be somewhat less liberal and more robust than it is now.
            Nevertheless, it is clear there has been a real decline in manliness among White males. It was, after all, White males who handed the franchise to women in the first place. And, before and after 1920, White males willingly gave up what once had been exclusively theirs by inviting non-whites to share political rights with them. There clearly is a real process at work which has sapped manly vigor, manly pride, and the manly sense of honor and individual responsibility. It has produced a White male population which today is more passive and more effeminate than it was a few decades ago. Perhaps it is the same process which has pushed so many young men all the way over the line into sexual inversion. In any case, the process has accelerated recently.
            The controlled media certainly have had a powerful effect in changing attitudes and styles. The great majority of men always – not just in the last 50 years – have been susceptible to the sort of influence the news and entertainment media are able to exert. Only a small minority in any era have had the strength and character to form and hold opinions which were truly theirs, rather than mere reflections of the views of their fellows – or since the advent of the controlled mass media in this century, reflections of the views the media have convinced them their fellows hold.
            The controlled media, for example, have done much to persuade a sizable minority, if not a majority, of White males that it is both unstylish and wicked to grimace when they spy a woman of their race in the company of a Black male or holding a mulatto offspring. But are the powers of the controlled media sufficient to make an otherwise healthy White male actually respond positively to such a sickening sight? If so, then perhaps the media also can be blamed for most of the men who have decided that they prefer other men to women, and not just for persuading normal men that it is unstylish and wicked to express disapproval of those who do so decide.
            That, however, is giving the controlled media more blame than they deserve, I think. The process of emasculation is not entirely artificial, directed from newspaper offices and television studios by scheming media masters plotting the demise of the goyim. It is, to a large extent, a natural process of decay, which the media masters did not invent, no matter how much they may be rejoicing over it and hastening it along.
            I won’t try and describe the causes of decay at length or analyze the process in any detail. Instead, I’ll just briefly mention a couple of additional things I believe cast a little light on it. Consider, for example, what television has done to our people, aside from the effect on their opinions and attitudes: It has made us a nation of spectators. We no longer do things; instead we sit on our couches and watch other people doing them. Probably the most striking aspect of this unhealthy phenomenon is the growth in the popularity of spectator sports. Tens of millions of us spends hundreds of hours every year watching teams of players throw balls of various sizes and shapes around, but very few actually engage in competitive sport. If we did, we might have harder bodies and tougher minds.
            I believe that the whole trend in life-styles during this century has had a similar effect. Fewer of us than ever before work with our hands, actually creating or helping to produce useful things. Fewer of us are farmers, blacksmiths, glassblowers, toolmakers, engineers. The sort of work most of us do makes it more difficult to convince ourselves that our work is really useful or that we are serving an essential role in our society. This tends to reduce our sense of participation and our sense of responsibility.
            Finally, the greatly increased number of women in the American work force has had a demoralizing effect on the whole population by obliterating the natural division of labor between the sexes. Men who realize that they no longer are essential as the sole breadwinners for their families feel less manly as a consequence – just as women who realize that they do not really need a man’s protection and support become less feminine thereby.
            Which is not to deny the fact that there are women who are both intellectually and physically capable of performing many traditional male tasks as well as or better than the average man. Nor is it an argument that in a healthy society women ought to be kept barefoot and pregnant. But it is an indication that a society which pretends that men and women are essentially the same and should serve the same economic and social functions is in serious trouble.
            And just how serious is America’s trouble?
[T]he feasibility of restoring a healthy, White America, 
by any means, without first descending into chaos and
dissolution, vanished decades ago.
            I am afraid it is mortally serious. I believe that when our government within two months of its announcement of the AIDS mortality rate in the Army, appoints a Black general as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of our armed forces [Colin Powell], solely because he is Black; and announces that a 19-year-old girl has been given the post of cadet commanding officer at the US Military Academy, we all need to do more than be thankful that the Soviet Union is busy with its own problems now. We need to be thinking very seriously about a strategy for salvaging from this society what can be salvaged before the putrefaction has become so pervasive that there is nothing left worth saving for the future.
            That prognosis certainly will be judged too pessimistic, even by many readers of NATIONAL VANGUARD. Many will continue to grasp for political remedies: they will continue to believe that it is feasible to elect honest, capable, racially conscious men to high public office in the United States, and that if they can elect enough such men to the Congress – perhaps even get one into the White House – America will be healed. The patient will throw off his shroud and rise from his slab. His tissue and organs will be rejuvenated. There will be no more rot in his vitals, no more stench of death clinging to his skin. But I do not believe that. 
            I believe that the rot has progressed too far. I have written here, very briefly, about only one facet of that rot, a moral facet. And my purpose in doing that was only to call to mind the situation which faces us. Perceptive NATIONAL VANGUARD readers already are aware of many other facets and they do not need me to remind them.
            Readers who are now serving in one of the armed forces know that the facts I’ve cited here do not begin to show how bad the state of affairs in our country’s military sector is. Readers who live in metropolitan areas on either coast, where the flood of non-White immigration is most apparent, know the population has become so thoroughly mixed up racially that no President and no Congress, even if they wanted to, could un-mix that mess without having a full-scale race war on their hands.
            And by far the worst part of it is that half the troops on the other side would be Whites who don’t want the mess un-mixed, Whites who think it’s just wonderful that so many members of the Congress are openly homosexual and can still be reelected, that White women are having mulatto children, and that our cities have so much “cultural diversity.”
            I’ll say it again: It’s not just a bunch of crooked politicians and scheming media masters who are responsible for the mortal trouble that this country is in. The people themselves have degenerated morally to such a point that many of them are beyond any cure that might be effected by purely electoral means.
            Of course, it would be good if we could elect the right sort of government anyway. Better a race war now than later, when the odds will be worse.
            And it would be good if racially conscious White people could regain control of our news and entertainment media. Then we could not only change the government policy, but we might even shift public opinion and demoralize the opposition enough to proceed with un-mixing the racial mess without having a civil war.
            But I don’t believe these “ifs” are reasonable possibilities any longer. I believe that the feasibility of restoring a healthy, White America, by any means, without first descending into chaos and dissolution, vanished decades ago. I believe that dissolution is inevitable now.
            Again, I am aware that these few words and the inadequately discussed examples I’ve presented here hardly suffice to prove my point or persuade those who believe the situation is not as bad as I am sure it is. But I feel obliged to speak out now anyway.
            So what should we do?
            First, I believe we should face reality squarely. I believe we should soberly assess the situation around us and accept the fact that we can’t salvage all of it. We can’t raise the dead. We can’t halt a historical process which has proceeded as far as the decay of America has.
            If we fail to face reality and continue to deceive ourselves into thinking that America can be turned around again via the electoral process or some other clever scheme, then we only postpone the personal disillusionment and “burnout” which will eventually be forced upon us. And meanwhile we fail to attract to our cause many of the hardheaded people who do not make a habit of self-deception.
            Second, I believe we should address ourselves to the task of salvaging what can be salvaged, and refine our strategies for accomplishing this task. This society, after all, is going somewhere. Eventually someone will inherit the wreckage. Eventually something else will grow out of the wreckage.
            We have got a lot of good genetic material and a lot of good minds left in America; a lot of racially and morally sound men and women with good character and good sense, who have remained immune to the poisonous influences all around them. It is absolutely essential to reach and orient this White elite, because some of these people will have both the will and the ability to participate actively in a concerted, disciplined effort to build a structure capable of sustaining and perpetuating itself in the dark years ahead; of preserving intact genes, values and goals which must become the basis for a new society in the future; and of exerting at least some influence on the interim course of events.
            That’s the broad objective. There are various ways of approaching it.
            One way is electoral politics – if we understand that we’re not trying to turn the government around, but simply using the electoral campaigns as forums for disseminating our message.
            Another way is lobbying on specific issues: opposition to affirmative action and other minority-favoring programs, support for citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms, opposition to further military or economic aid for Israel, etc. – again understanding that the principle aim is the lobbying and not to revive a moribund society, but to call attention to the issues and establish contact with like-minded people.
            The way I chose for myself when I left my university teaching position more than two decades ago in order to address myself to the severe social and racial problems I saw confronting my people was writing, publishing, and distributing educational materials – primarily books and magazines, and now videos. Over the years this activity has put me in touch with many fine people, and some of them have participated in my efforts.
            But now more is needed. We need more than a handful of dedicated people helping out with one project or another now and then. We need more than a membership organization whose members carry cards, pay dues, and occasionally lend someone else their copy of NATIONAL VANGUARD.
            We need an elite network of hardheaded, disciplined men and women who are both willing and able to use their skills and talents in a coordinated way for the benefit of our race; people willing to make a lifetime commitment to saving whatever is worth saving from the mess our race and civilization are in; people who in most cases will continue in their present professions, but will keep in touch with the network and will give priority to assignments and programs related to its purpose.
 I know what we need to do. I believe I know how 
to do it. But I can’t do it without more help.

            We have some excellent people now; but there aren’t enough of them. The work is done by too few. We have to get more capable people involved, so that when I’m finishing a new book the publication of NATIONAL VANGUARD doesn’t come to a halt. But my problems with getting publications out are only one example. There are dozens of other programs we should be working on, programs that require many different kinds of people with many different skills.
            I know what we need to do. I believe I know how to do it. But I can’t do it without more help. The details of what we will do depend on the specific people involved. I need to hear from those who are ready to help, so that we can discuss the details and make decisions.
            As for everyone else, I appreciate your continued patience and support.
William L. Pierce, NATIONAL VANGUARD Editor