Leftist Fears of the National Alliance

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THE LEFT HAS been doing a lot of moaning recently about “the rise of fascism” in America. Painting Ronald Reagan as an authoritarian bigot who aims to undo the civil rights “gains” of the last 30 years by putting Blacks back “in their place." The more wild-eyed elements on the left had gone so far as to claim that the Ku Klux Klan and other militant pro-White groups are secretly linked to the Reagan administration and have the government’s blessing when they “terrorize” minorities. That sort of hokum is good for coaxing contributions out of rich, left-wing Jews and their twittering bird-brains of White liberaldom.

The leaders and theoreticians of the radical left know better, of course, and among themselves they are more realistic. They know that White nationalists are hated and harassed by the Federal bureaucracy whether the man in the White House is a Carter or a Reagan. But they are genuinely concerned about one fairly new development: the ongoing radicalization of White groups, both in America and in Europe. In their publications they are warning one another that White action based on a coherent, fundamental, unifying ideology presents a far greater danger to them than the parochial and essentially conservative White reaction of the past.

In this the leftists are entirely correct. And it is interesting to note that the National Alliance has been singled out by at least one radical-leftists publication as the most dangerous of all White nationalist organizations, despite the fact that the Alliance has avoided headline-grabbing public activity and is still a rather small organization numerically. It is ideas, not right-wing publicity stunts which the enemies of a White future fear — and rightly so. And because the Alliance has been foremost in the formulation and propagation of ideas, the more intelligent leftists see it as the top threat to their own schemes.

Dr. Pierce on Christian Morality

Letter to editor in National Vanguard magazine - December 1982:

Hellfire and Brimstone

Dear National Vanguard:

In the October issue Dr. Pierce has, indeed, shown that his "A New Morality for Us" is more unequivocally on the side of our race than is Dennis Whiting's "One Morality for All," but one must wonder if his appeal to an "underlying purpose of all life" is less of a theological concept than Whiting's Christian deity. Most people of our race, after they have lost their Christian faith, are not ready to be bemused by any notion of evolutionary purpose; rather, they quickly devolve to the kind of mad-dog individualism, extolled by libertarians, which is as much to blame for failure to defend our race as is misplaced altruism.

Christianity, at least, was brutally blunt in its reason for commanding faith: Believe or your soul will endure eternal torments in hell. What threat (or promise, for that matter) can be presented to those who do not see why they should care about the fate of their race now or ten years from now, much less, say, a hundred years after their deaths?

-B.N.
Little Rock, AR

Editor's Reply:

Two interesting points are raised: To what extent has the Christian theology of punishment and reward been responsible for the moral behavior of Whites in the past, and how can a new morality be imposed without a similar theology?

It is true that a century ago, when the West was almost entirely Christian -- and most Christians were White -- a generally higher standard of personal conduct was met than today, when Christianity has lost both its status as a predominantly White religion and a substantial portion of its former White adherents.

It is also true that many of those who have shucked off the old Christian superstitions today are worse-behaved than their contemporaries who still adhere to Christianity. Everyone has observed those unlovely individuals who have used their liberation from Christianity as an excuse to "liberate" themselves from every moral restraint on their behavior and every responsibility to anyone but themselves. Most of these call themselves "libertarians" or "elitists," but, unfortunately, some have attached themselves to our camp, where they clearly do not belong.

I do not believe that this problem is primarily one of theology, however. In the past, fear of fire and brimstone may have had some effect, but it was almost entirely restricted to ritual. That is, visions of hellfire may have helped church attendance a bit on Sunday morning and persuaded believers that it was important to memorize the Lord's Prayer or to know when to genuflect. But it was not the principal determinant of their behavior.

Morality was much more strongly supported by social rather than by religious sanctions. A man felt it was important to keep his word because he wanted self-respect and the respect of his neighbors, not because he feared eternal damnation. Sexual behavior was more discreet for the same reason: A girl valued her virginity, not because she thought it would improve her chances on Judgment Day, but because she was concerned for her reputation in the community and her marriageability.

The same principle holds today: It is social custom and peer pressure, not Christian doctrine, which directly determine the morality of Christians; doctrine acts only indirectly.

As an example, consider the U.S. tobacco industry, which is centered in the Bible Belt. No Christian theologian can sincerely condone the production and sale of a habit-forming, carcinogenic drug, knowing that such activity condemns tens of thousands of other Christians to an agonizing death every year. Yet I would bet that close to half of the tobacco company executives who lobbied vigorously to keep cancer warnings off the cigarette packages they sell are churchgoing Christians. I know that most of the farmers who grow tobacco and sell it to the cigarette producers are.

These people, many of whom consider Playboy magazine sinful, go about their deadly business with apparently untroubled consciences. They do so because the community, primarily for economic reasons, tolerates it, and the churches, unwilling to buck long-established custom, have not explicitly condemned it. Fear of hellfire might keep a lot of them from spitting on a Bible or wearing hats in church, but not from earning a living in a way which is enormously harmful to the health of their fellow citizens.

One may condemn them for moral obtuseness, but that misses the point. Most men are and always have been morally obtuse.

The point is this: Morality suffers today, not because many Whites no longer believe in the heaven and hell of Christianity, but because the social order is crumbling under the impact of "pluralism." A religion may supply the basic moral imperatives to a society, but it is the society itself which translates them into the behavior of ordinary men and women. If Western society were still racially and culturally homogeneous and the social order strong, people would guide their behavior according to the accepted social norms, whatever they happened to be, with or without the threat of hell.

Likewise, until a new social order is established which institutionalizes a race-based morality, many who pay lip service to such a morality will, in fact, not actually guide their lives by it, but instead will continue to live amorally. Once such a morality has been institutionalized, however, theology will play a relatively minor role in determining behavior.

In conclusion, religious doctrine is of fundamental importance in determining which values, beliefs, and behavioral norms become institutionalized in a society, but social instincts are much more important than any theology of reward and punishment in compelling men and women to lead moral lives.

W.L.P.

Dr. Pierce Tells Us What's Important

From Attack! tabloid, No. 29, 1974:

The Important Things

by Dr. William L. Pierce

CHINA HAS THE largest population, the United States has the highest standard of living, the Soviet Union has the biggest navy, Sweden has the most beautiful women, Iceland has the highest level of literacy, and Germany has an industry with the best reputation for efficiency and craftsmanship.

Which of these things are really important? Which make worthy national goals? Toward which ends should a people most intently direct its energies and aspirations?

As America’s bicentennial draws near, one hears a great deal about such questions. All the mass media are putting forth their speculations on the question of what America’s “national purpose” should be, but satisfactory answers are much scarcer.

More Fiberglass Speedboats

If there is any consensus at all it seems to be that Americans should strive, first and foremost, for more of what they already have the most of, namely, affluence.

Although some spokesmen try to tone down the crass materialism of such a goal with euphemisms about improving the “quality of life,” their message still comes across as more fiberglass speedboats parked in American driveways.

In addition, of course, we should look forward to a 30·hour work week and several clever new ways for economically disposing of the country’s growing flood of waste products.

This is the sort of consensus we should expect from what America has, unfortunately, become. It is the sort of national purpose to which an inherently decadent society is naturally attracted.

Materialist Criteria

The criteria one uses in judging national goals depend upon one’s personal world view. The American conservative and the American neo-liberal, despite their differences, both have a fundamentally materialist-economic outlook. They both tend to evaluate national goals in terms of dollars and cents: in terms of such things as the gross national product, the per capita income, the national debt, and the balance of payments.

Even when they translate these economic concepts into human terms, they both have the basic materialist goal of achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of citizens. They only disagree as to the means to be used in achieving this goal.

But there are other criteria, lying wholly outside the materialist-economic realm, which may be used in deciding national goals, in distinguishing between truly important things and secondary things.

The Destiny Thinker

To the racially conscious man or woman of the West—to the destiny-thinker—what counts is not so much whether his fellow citizens are happy, prosperous, and have fulfilled sex lives, but whether they are willing and able to accept the challenge of History. His concern is that his people, his nation, be morally and spiritually prepared, as well as physically able, to grasp its destiny, to fill the role allotted it by the Creator of the universe.

He wants his people to be strong and fit and far-sighted, and he considers these things more important than prosperity and comfort. He understands that a people which places the highest value on happiness, rather than on fitness, is doomed to lose its happiness—and everything else—in the long run.

America Must Survive

He realizes that Western man—and, in particular, White America—has a mission and that that mission must take precedence over all else.

A people with a mission must, first of all, survive. If America is to survive she must have military might, which in turn requires a healthy economy and a vigorous, efficient national industry to provide the material basis for that might.

Liberals and conservatives agree with the destiny-thinker on the desirability of a strong economic and industrial base for America’s national defense, but they put theemphasis in the wrong place. They think primarily in terms of security rather than strength. There is a difference.

Dollar Diplomacy

If a nation seeks always to be strong, it will also be secure. But if it looks only for security, by any means, it may end up neither as strong nor as secure as it should be.

An example of this is our government’s post-World War II program to buy security by putting on the American dole all those countries which might otherwise adhere to our national enemies. The proponents of this program calculate that the billions of dollars in foreign aid used to buy the “friendship” of various banana republics and swarthy principalities allow us to reduce our defense expenditures by even more billions, thus resulting in a net saving for our national economy.

They forget that the only basis for true friendship is mutual respect, and a handout buys that neither for the giver nor the receiver. A truly strong nation will have the respect of other nations without even having to ask for it, whereas a nation which is merely rich will elicit envy rather than respect.

Prosperity vs. Fitness

But national strength depends on more than a material base; it also requires character, and that is something which is in no way enhanced by national prosperity.

Although a nation’s prosperity receives its initial impetus from a strong national character, in the long run prosperity may sap that very moral basis upon which it rests.

Adversity tempers a nation’s soul, just as it does the soul of the individual citizen, whereas the prolonged absence of adversity may allow souls to lose their temper. There is abundant evidence before us that America’s material wealth has taken a heavy spiritual toll.

History’s Irony

History’s great irony is this: fitness preconditions a people’s rise to dominance, which in turn leads to the decay of fitness and an eventual fall from dominance.

When tribes or nations or races interact with one another, that one most endowed by Nature with fitness will, in the ordinary course of events, rise to dominance over the others.

The hardest work and the most rigorous conditions of existence will then be the lot of the subordinate peoples, while the masters will enjoy relative luxury and a relaxed life-style.

The consequence of this difference in the demands which life makes on the various peoples will be that the dominant people will gradually lose its fitness, while the subordinate peoples will tend to retain theirs.

Eventually the time may come when one of the subordinate peoples will be more fit than its masters and will then supplant them and assume the dominant position for itself.

And the cycle repeats itself.

Turbulent Record

This is the principal cause of history’s turbulence. Were it not for this built-in instability, the historical record of mankind would be much simpler than it is. A naturally superior people would gain dominance over other peoples and, as time passed, extend and consolidate that dominance instead of losing it.

We said the cycle repeats itself. That, of course is not exactly true. Because history is turbulent, and not truly periodic or cyclic, there is no repetition. Peoples and nations rise and they fall, but the same peoples and nations never rise again.

When, occasionally, a fallen nation appears to regain its former dominance, one may be certain that the human content of that nation is not what it was before. History not only has a built-in instability but also a built-in loss mechanism: racial change.

Nature’s Pruning

Adversity conditions genetic fitness as well as spiritual fitness. Nature and a fit spirit then collaborate to keep the racial basis of a nation pure and healthy.

Rising prosperity and increasingly easier living begin circumventing Nature’s geneticpruning, with the slow, the stupid, and the lazy no longer being so effectivelyweeded out. Then, as moral fitness declines and toughness turns to squeamishness, man‘s own measures for protecting his racial quality and purity are gradually abandoned, and racial mixture begins taking place.

A nation which begins losing its political grip usually also begins losing its racial quality, which, once gone, can never return.

Ancestral Folly

As our Aryan ancestors began spreading over the face of the earth thousands of years ago, they dominated all the other peoples with whom they came in contact.But eventually they softened and lost their moral fitness, and now over vast areas where they once ruled—from the Mediterranean basin to India— they have so thoroughly mingled their blood with that of other races that they can never rise again, because they have literally ceased to exist.

In America today, the White majority has not only lost its fitness to rule as the unquestioned master of the continent, but it is well on the way toward losing its fitness to survive at all. Only its greater numbers give it security now, and even that security is rapidly dwindling in the face of racial mixing and soaring minority birth and immigration rates.

Vikings and Cannibals

If we could reach back a dozen centuries end pluck 1,000 Vikings out of barbarian Europe and 1,000 Negro tribesmen out of darkest Africa, each group armed with its traditional weapons, and set them at each other, there would not be the slightest doubt as to the outcome of the battle—or, more accurately, massacre. In fact, we could with perfect safety put our money on the Vikings if there were only 100 of them facing the 1,000 Negroes.

But things have changed in the last 1200 years—for the White man. He has grown dangerously soft, while the Blacks have retained much of their primitive toughness.

Nation of Weaklings

The consequences are evident everywhere, as the Black minority intimidates the White majority on our city streets, in our schools, in our jails, in our armed forces, and in our places of work.

And it is not just that we have become physically weak and soft, although that is a part of it. Much more important is that we have lost our moral temper, our courage, our fighting spirit, our sense of personal honor—and our feeling of racial pride and solidarity.

Thus, we even cower before the Jews, who have never been much of a physical menace. And in our dealings with enemies abroad we have become virtually a nation of weaklings, hiding behind our nuclear arsenal as third-rate Asiatic powers contemptuously defy us.

Breaking History’s Cycle

Man is a wondrous animal. He cannot circumvent Nature’s laws, but he can go a longway toward turning them to his advantage. With sufficient understanding and will he can make the best of them.

There is no natural law which says that a nation which has become rich and powerful must consequently become soft and decadent, any more than a man who has become wealthy and no longer needs to work for his living must become fat and lazy. It just usually turns out that way. In the case of nations it has never yet been otherwise.

But, just as an individual can remain fit through the exercise of sufficient self-discipline, so should a nation be able to do likewise. So should America.

Choosing National Goals

America should be able to remain economically and militarily strong and at the same time regain her former moral strength. It depends upon whether we have enough character left to choose the truly important things as our national goals, or whether we stick with the choices which have been made for us by the System and its molders of public opinion.

It depends upon whether we choose fitness as the pre-eminent national goal—fitness instead of debilitating comfort, fitness instead of transitory prosperity, fitness instead of false security, fitness instead of a delusory happiness.

What We Must Do

American can become fit again if we undertake the proper education of our children;if we forsake unnecessary civilian luxuries in order to maintain an unquestioned military superiority; if we put physical toughness ahead of self-indulgence; if we teach our fellow citizens to be self-reliant instead of dependent on government; andif we learn to discipline ourselves, putting the welfare of our racial community above all private interests.

Americans must understand that, contrary to the claims of the System’s educators, the proper education of our children does not require billions of dollars for shiny, glass-and-steel, air-conditioned school buildings, elaborately furnished with every luxury and frippery money can buy and offering courses in everything from African art to transcendental meditation.

Building Character

It requires instead a program for our young people which, beyond providing them with the rudiments of language and science needed to fill a productive role in society, builds character; a program of discipline, which is the way in which self-discipline is learned; a program aimed at developing in them a strong feeling of racial and cultural identity, through an intimate acquaintance with the achievements of their forebears, so that they understand that they are, above all else, White, and that they are the heirs to Western civilization, the most magnificent and profound cultural achievement on this globe; a program which also, instead of the “unisex” foolishness being pushed today, teaches our young men to be proud of their manhood and our young women to treasure their womanhood; a program which inculcates in them a sense of personal responsibility and of duty to their racial community; a program which toughens and trains their bodies as well as their minds and spirits; a program which uplifts them and directs their thoughts and aspirations toward the mission and the destiny of their people.

Guns or Butter?

Another choice which Americans must make is between guns and butter. We must come to understand that we can get along very well without electric can-openers, carving knives, toothbrushes, and pencil sharpeners; self-propelled lawn mowers and golf carts; power steering, power brakes, and power windows; automatic dish washers and self-cleaning ovens; but not without the strongest and the best-equipped armed forces in the world. A dollar spent for the national defense is a dollar better spent than for civilian luxuries.

Moreover, money spent for guns serves the national interest, whereas money spent on luxuries often harms that interest by undermining the physical health of the people. It may be pleasant, for example, to have more automobiles, elevators, and escalators per capita than any other country on earth, but it is far more important to have a citizenry which is healthy, trim, and physically hard.

Prepared to Slit Throats

Americans must also understand that being manly and tough does not mean being coarse, cruel, backward, or unrefined; that protecting our young people from the harsher realities of life serves neither them nor their racial community well in the long run; that it is better that they be prepared to slit throats without flinching, when the need arises, than that they be sheltered from danger and hardship and unpleasantness during their formative years.

Americans must understand that a resourceful and self-reliant citizenry is more important than an absolutely safe and secure citizenry and that, therefore, it is not the role of government to protect citizens from themselves, but only to protect the community; nor should government attempt to intrude excessively into the private affairs of individuals, nor to regulate their lives unnecessarily, but only to the extent demanded by national security and the social and racial health of the community.

Racial Interests Come First

Americans must also understand, on the other hand, that the freedom of the individual to do as he pleases requires certain limits, for the welfare of the nation; that there can be no unrestricted freedom to marry across racial lines or to have children without considerations of genetic soundness; that there can be no freedom to use private property to the detriment of the whole community, as, for example, the mass media are now being used; that there can be no freedom to indulge oneself in degeneracy which may contaminate the community, whether that degeneracy be homosexuality, drug addiction, or some other inexcusable vice.

Americans must come to understand which are the important things and which are not.

* * *

Transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

Cosmotheist Affirmations

Cosmotheist Affirmations

These are to be studied, memorized and recited daily by Cosmotheist believers. These Affirmations are also to be recited aloud, in unison by Cosmotheists at the beginning of each gathering to reinforce our Purpose, which is the Creator's Purpose: 

• A:1 There is but One Reality.  

• A:2 That is, Reality is the Whole.  

• A:3 It is the Creator, the Self-Created.  

• A:4 I am of the Whole.  

• A:5 I am of the Creator, of the Self-Created.  

• A:6 My Purpose is the Creator's Purpose.  

• A:7 My Path is the Path of the Creator's Self-Realization.  

• A:8 My Path is the Path Divine Consciousness.  

• A:9 My Destiny is Godhood.

Dr. Pierce on Necessity of Staying "Legal"

Editorial by Dr. William L. Pierce, National Socialist World journal, Winter 1968:

Revolution & Legality

 "In a sense, this essay is a precursor of [Dr. Pierce's]
 shift in approach from the National Socialists White Peoples
Party to the National Youth Alliance." -James Harting

Two classes of concepts which are fundamentally different in nature, yet often confused, are those having to do with doctrine and those concerned with tactics. The former are independent of changing circumstances and conditions; the latter are strongly dependent on these things. We make an extremely grave error when we treat a doctrinal point as if it were a tactical matter, but we also make a serious error when we assign to some tactical consideration the attributes of a point of doctrine.

The National Socialist movement has generally been considered to be an element of the "right wing," albeit an extreme element. Indeed, we apparently share a number of things with other right-wing elements, such as anti-Marxism, a respect for tradition, and support for the forces of law and order, That last has meant, among other things, that we have constrained ourselves to the use of "legal" methods only in our struggle.

Now, whereas our anti-Marxism is implicit in our National Socialist doctrine, our self-restriction to legal methods is tactical in nature.¹ Because the movement has, however, since 1923, insisted upon "legality" in its relationship with constituted authority, some may have fallen into the error of thinking that this insistence stems from doctrinal considerations about the sanctity of "law and order." Under certain conditions this error can lead to disastrous consequences. Since the occurrence of these "certain conditions" in the foreseeable future is by no means a merely academic possibility, it may be worthwhile to examine this problem in detail. 

In terms of the most fundamental National Socialist criterion, the question is: Is the support of the constituted authority and the maintenance of law and order in the best long-term interest of the race? And the self-evident answer is, that this depends upon the nature and the aims of the particular constituted authority in question. For while it is true that when a State is fulfilling its proper function as defender and champion of the racial interests of its people the aims of race and law and order become identical, those aims no longer coincide when the State strays from its proper role. In this respect the teachings of the Leader are quite clear:

The State is a means to an end. This end is the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually homogeneous living creatures. This preservation itself includes, firstly, subsistence as a race and thus permits the free development of all powers slumbering within that race."...States that do not serve this purpose are mistakes, nay, monstrosities. The fact of their existence does not alter this any more than the success of a crew of buccaneers can justify piracy."...We must make a sharp distinction between the State as a vessel and the race as its content. This vessel has a purpose only so long as it can preserve and protect the content; otherwise it is worthless.²

Strictly speaking, only a National socialist State can fully satisfy our criterion: any other State formation can only approximate the ideal role of the State as defender and champion of the racial interests of its people; and in this light the present day Western democracies can only be described as monstrosities. 

If a State can be carried through a peaceful evolution toward its proper role, then this course should be followed, for we certainly do not seek a state of anarchy and chaos as an end in itself. There are always dangers inherent in such a situation: more than one revolution has gone astray during its violent phase, emerging from the conflict with an altogether different character than upon entering.

On the other hand, neither must peaceful revolution be sought as an end in itself. Where it does not provide a realistic and practical course of action, it must be abandoned without hesitation for other means.

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

"We are 'legal' now because we dare not be otherwise."

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

Considering the present array of State formations with which we are faced, the question which naturally arises is this: is it conceivable that any of these degenerate and racially destructive entities can be smoothly transformed into a National Socialist State? Or must we think in terms of a total leveling of the present structures before we can hope to begin building a new structure on sound foundations? Whatever our answer, it must be based only upon an evaluation of the possibilities inherent in the various paths leading to our ultimate racial goals, and not upon any false conception of our obligations toward any presently existing State authority.

Again, the Leader has spelled this out for us:

State authority cannot exist as an end in itself, or every tyranny in this world would be sacred and untouchable. If, by the instrument of governmental authority, a people is being driven to its destruction, then rebellion is not only the right but the duty of every member of that people... In general , it must never be forgotten that the highest purpose of man's existence is not the maintenance of a State, let alone of a government, but the preservation of its own kind. Let that be in danger of suppression or destruction, and the question of legality is but subordinate. Then, though the methods of the ruling power be a thousand times 'legal,' the self-preservation of the oppressed is always the noblest justification for a struggle using any and every weapon.³

Why, then, the insistence up till now on "legality" in our struggle? The answer is that we are faced with the same difficulty today that confronted the Movement forty-five years ago in Germany: the enemy, with ll the repressive powers of the State at his disposal, is far stronger physically than we. In any shooting match with the State authority, we are bound to lose decisively, just as we lost on November 9, 1923.

The fact that the anarchist elements among the Jews are able to use illegal means with relative impunity in their assault upon "the Establishment" should not mislead us into thinking that the same tactics will work for us. In the first place, we do not have the allies in the Establishment that they have. We cannot provoke large-scale violence and disorder and receive a gentle slap on the wrist in reprisal, as they can. In the second place, we and they have entirely different aims. Since their purpose is, above all, to destroy the existing order of things, they have a much greater freedom of action than we have; they can carry out their purpose with a much looser organizational structure than we can ours, and thus they are relatively less susceptible to counterattack.

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

"[T]he key to success in the struggle ahead is self-discipline."

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

We are "legal" now because we dare not be otherwise; we are yet too weak to defy the State authority successfully. At the same time, as long as we are weak and ineffective the State feels no real threat from us, and, therefore, no pressing need to destroy us. But our relationship to the State is changing, and we are entering a new and critical phase of our development -- one in which we are becoming too strong for the State to ignore, yet not strong enough to defend ourselves from its attacks. These attacks will progress from quasi-legal harassment, intimidation of our members and supporters, and interference with our mail to illegal arrests and criminal charges based on falsified evidence, the withdrawal of police protection, and -- eventually -- outlawry through special legislation. Whenever in the course of these developments we allow ourselves to be provoked into illegal counteraction, we provide the State with the powerful weapon of self-justification. 

Yet, the conflict seems inevitable, for before our struggle is over each and every criminal comprising the System will have a pretty good idea just what fate awaits him at our hands. Very few are likely to deceive themselves into believing that we are "just another Party," with which they can reach an "understanding" which will leave the System largely intact. They will almost certainly realize that a triumphant National Socialism will mean not only a permanent end to their whole way of life, but an end to life itself for many of them. This knowledge will not incline them to yield gracefully to us.

Despite what lies ahead, however, we must strenuously avoid yielding to the temptation to retaliate prematurely to the provocations that beset us. When we do take the very grave step of illegal action, it must only be because the further progress of the Movement demands it -- not because we can no longer repress the urge to satisfy our thirst for vengeance or because irresponsible elements in the Movement have not been kept under close enough rein. 

Thus, the key to success in the struggle ahead is self-discipline. While it is the time to be "legal" we must stolidly endure whatever the State sees fit to inflict upon us. And when it is time to revolt, we must be prepared to unleash all the furies of hell on the State until it yields.

W.L.P.

______________________________________________

1. And our respect for tradition is often tactical rather than doctrinal; it makes a great deal of difference about which traditions we are talking.

2. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, II, Chap. 2.

3. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, I, chap. 3.

Dr. Pierce Discusses Fight Against "Racism"

From Attack! tabloid, No. 27, 1974

Revolt of the Submen

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

A FEW YEARS AGO “fascism” was the number-one devil of the radical Left. Today it is “racism.” This change is significant, and a close look at the reasons behind it reveals to us, in starkly simple terms, the fundamental nature of communism and the true motives of its promoters.

The switch in emphasis from anti-fascism to anti-racism is not the only major change in the communist image which has taken place in recent years, of course. Long gone are the soapbox haranguers with the Yiddish accents who in pre-World War II days exhorted the workers to cast off their chains. Today their sons and daughters in the so-called “New Left” are on an entirely different tack.

Americans Wouldn’t Bite

American workers, even during the most difficult periods of the nation’s history, were never desperate enough or stupid enough to swallow the lie that they could come out ahead by exchanging their capitalist chains for communist chains. Instead, they strived to make their capitalist chains more tolerable.

Through aspiration and diligence they succeeded in large measure, many even becoming mini-capitalists themselves. To be sure, inflation has recently made the American worker’s effort to maintain his standard of living akin to the hopeless task of Sisyphus. A lot of hard work and a little common sense have, nevertheless, remained a more appealing formula than any Marxist doubletalk about “expropriation” or a “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Black Recruits

Thus, the majority of the White American working class was long ago written off by the Marxist planners as an impossible bunch of rednecks and reactionaries, even though lip-service is still paid to the old goal of “workers’ solidarity,” especially in some of the redder unions. The Reds began looking instead to the growing masses of non-Whites in American cities as the proper raw material for their revolutionary army.

The Negroes in America have always been a factor in communist plans, but World War II was the real watershed between the former emphasis on White workers and the beginning of a gradual shift to non-Whites—a shift which has become completely obvious only in the last year or two.

As early as 1912 Israel Cohen, a Marxist living in England, wrote in his A Racial Program for the 20th Century that the growing Black population of America should be regarded as the key to the delivery of the Western Hemisphere into communist hands, but for many years Cohen’s plan was kept on the back burner.

Promiscuous Fecundity

During World War II, however, the slow migration of Blacks from Southern farms to industrial cities all over the country was given a great impetus. Many American cities which were nearly all-White in 1941 have become predominately Black—or, at least, predominately non-White. Not only the urban migration, but increased immigration from the Caribbean and the darker areas of Latin America and an astounding non-White rate of reproduction, encouraged by a welfare system which rewards promiscuous fecundity, have resulted in the color shift in America’s cities.

Inferiority Is Essential

The precondition for any successful communist activity is a society containing at least one recognizable category of people obsessed by a feeling of inferiority. The first task of the communist cadres is to transform that feeling of inferiority—whether it stems from artificial, class divisions or from natural, biological differences—into resentment and hatred of all those who do not belong to the inferior category. That hatred then becomes the driving force of a movement to destroy society’s superior elements, since they are, by communist reasoning, responsible for the inferiority of the others: without superiority there can be no inferiority.

America’s White workers, though often recognizing that they were being unfairly used, never really felt, as a whole, that they were irreconcilably inferior to those using them. Furthermore, they preferred to remedy in their own way whatever inequities they felt, without the help of any outsiders as their self-appointed leaders.

America’s non-White minorities—especially the Blacks—are in a fundamentally different position. What can they do to salve their feeling of inferiority? Racial integration has only made it worse.

When they attended all-Black schools and lived in all-Black communities, they certainly were not pleased by the contrast they could see between White America’s standard of living and their own. But that resentment was nothing compared to their feelings now, when they are forced each day to compete with the Whites, in the schools, on the job, and in the marketplace.

No More Excuses

All the old excuses for an inferior status no longer yield any comfort. When Whitey, in his big, fine house across the tracks, could be blamed for holding the Black man down, there was some solace. But now, with all Whitey’s barriers down and the Black man still unable to compete on an equal basis, a much deeper sense of inferiority is turning resentment into a raging, bloodthirsty hatred.

The dirge of “we shall overcome” has given way to the cry of “kill Whitey!” That is a sentiment the communists know well how to use!

Embarrassing Preponderance

During the 1960s the Students for a Democratic Society and other New Left organizations were largely Jewish in makeup. A heavily Jewish leadership made a strong effort to build a mass communist movement of alienated young Whites on university campuses and in the “street” communities of young dropouts.

The White response was marginal, however, and SDS and the other groups ended up with a rank and file which displayed nearly the same embarrassing preponderance of Jewish faces as the leadership cadres. Thus, for example, when the Ohio National Guard opened fire on a group of leftist rioters at Kent State University on May 4, 1970, three out of the four students killed were Jews—and the fourth was an ROTC student not participating in the riot who was accidentally hit by a stray bullet.

ACTUAL SUBSCRIPTION AD for tabloid published by National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC), a New Left group. Classic Jewish profile of tabloid salesman is typical of New Left cadres.

New Plans, New Faces, New Enemy

The American pullout from Vietnam gave the New Left a chance to withdraw temporarily from the field of action and make new plans. They are back now, and they have both a new set of faces and a new name for the enemy.

The new faces are black and brown and every shade in between—even a few red and yellow ones—and the enemy’s name has changed from “imperialist military-industrial complex” to “racist ruling class. ” The same Jews, of course, are calling the shots.

The reason the enemy must be smashed is no longer because he is waging an imperialist war in Indochina but because he is oppressing the non-White workers of America.

Black “Leaders”

The Old Left, i.e., the Communist Party USA, has been on the anti-racist track even longer. Since 1961 their figurehead party chairman has been a Negro. In 1968 they ran a Black woman as their candidate for President of the United States, and in 1972 their vice- presidential candidate was a Negro.

The rhetoric of SDS and other Red groups now relates nearly all their old, standard, bread-and-butter economic issues to a racial theme: members of the ruling class in industry and business are holding non-Whites back from the best jobs and from promotions; in the armed services the military branch of the ruling class is giving Blacks the hardest work and the most dangerous missions and punishing them more severely than White transgressors for breaches of military discipline; ruling-class administrators and professors on the campuses are conspiring to keep non-Whites from enrolling and to keep those who do manage to get in from getting good enough grades to graduate to top-paying jobs. And, of course, it is racist members of the same, hated ruling class who run the government and are conspiring to deprive Blacks, Chicanos, Indians, etc. of welfare payments, health benefits, food stamps, subsidized housing, and human dignity.

TYPICAL SDS CONTINGENT at City College of New York. This group, headed by the Jewess in the center, has as its only White member the slack-jawed specimen on the right. SDS is recruiting not just Negroes, but half-castes of every shade and racial background, all united in their hatred of the White “ruling class.”

Fellow Travelers

Absolutely essential to the political strategy of the New Left is the same thing on which the Old Left depended so heavily: the active collaboration of a vast number of “liberal” fellow travelers.

Liberals formerly supported Red programs in order to “fight fascism.” Today it is to “end discrimination.”

Middle-class liberals who would not dream of throwing a bomb at a police station, or even marching in a Red demonstration, sponsor boycotts against all lettuce and grapes not picked by a Chicano union. Through their churches they give money to Black terrorist groups waging guerrilla warfare against White farmers in Rhodesia. And through political donations and campaign work for both the major parties they sent the men to Washington who have given us school bussing; preferential Black hiring quotas; and racially integrated, drug-ridden armed services.

FRONT PAGE OF TABLOID published by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Note the “SMASH RACISM” logotype. The one theme of the publications is the advancement of non-Whites by banning “racist” research and textbooks, silencing “racist” professors, etc.

Intimidated Public

Also essential to the Reds’ success is the passive collaboration of a thoroughly intimidated general public–all those who are afraid to oppose them because they don’t want to be called “racists,” just as a few years earlier they were afraid to be called “reactionaries” or “fascists” for standing up for what they believed.

Nowhere is the new image of the New Left more forcibly displayed than on America’s college campuses. No longer is the SDS burning campus ROTC buildings; now the fire is being concentrated on “racist” administrators, professors, and textbooks.

Attacking Dr. Shockley

DR. WILLIAM SHOCKLEY

Currently the most popular campus target of the New Left is Dr. William Shockley, who has been presenting—or attempting to present—his proof of the genetic basis of Negro mental inferiority to university audiences around the country. The Reds almost invariably use an appearance by Shockley as an excuse to turn a campus upside down.

It is relatively easy for them to convince Blacks on the campus and in the surrounding community that Shockley is advocating the mass extermination of non-Whites. Campus Jews pin yellow Stars of David on their clothes and dust off all the tired, old concentration-camp stories about Nazi medical experiments and gas chambers.

Leaflets are mimeographed, bomb threats are telephoned to the administration and to the group sponsoring Shockley’s visit, anti-racist rallies are held, and, on the day of the scheduled lecture, picket lines are set up around the auditorium.

The Reds pack the hall with their fellow travelers, while roving gangs of Negro athletes threaten other students who try to get inside. When Shockley attempts to speak he is drowned out by shouted obscenities and chants of “No free speech for racists!”

Spineless Officials

Dr. Shockley, of course, understands the necessity of such confrontations for provoking the Reds into playing their whole hand, and he perseveres. Others are not so bold, however. On campus after campus spineless administrators cave in to demands to cancel Shockley’s speaking engagements and to ban the use of biology, psychology, and sociology textbooks which even hint at the facts of race.

Ironically, many fellow travelers have also found themselves targets of the Reds’ wrath. In order to draw fire one does not have to pose any substantial challenge to the equality myth; it is sufficient to suggest that perhaps IQ tests may still have some value, or that “racist” books should be ridiculed but not burned, or that there may be certain biological differences between Blacks and Whites.

Reaping the Whirlwind

A nutrition research laboratory was wrecked by Reds on one campus because the “racist” director of research insisted on maintaining that there are genetically based differences in nutritional requirements between Negros and Caucasians. It didn’t help a bit for him to protest, “I’m not a racist; I marched at Selma!”

At Temple University, in Philadelphia, English professor Dr. J. Mitchel Morse has been under attack as a “racist” for writing a textbook which describes Negro ghetto dialect as inferior to Standard English. His thesis is that Negroes should be taught to speak, read, and write exactly the same as Whites. For this, his classes have been disrupted by SDS members and the Temple University administration has been presented with demands that he be fired.

Morse has angrily remonstrated with SDS hecklers,”How dare you call me a racist when I’ve been an anti-racist all my life?” But the heckling and disruptions continue.

The Streaking Conspiracy

The New Left now interprets virtually every social phenomenon in terms of “racism”—even streaking. The March-April issue of New Left Notes (published by SDS) has an article titled “Streaking: Bosses Exposed” which concludes that streaking is the product of a conspiracy by the ruling class to divert students’ attention and energy away from the fight against racism.

The immediate goal of all this New Left activity is twofold. First and foremost is the campaign to organize the non-Whites of America into a revolutionary political force which can be used to destroy the White “ruling class.”

Against all Standards

A variation of the carrot-and-stick approach is used here. Blacks, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans—in fact, every misbegotten half-caste the Reds can dredge from the cesspools of miscegenation which America’s cities have become—are flattered by the uncompromising insistence on their absolute “equality.”

RECRUITING AD for Young Socialist Alliance, another New Left organization. Notice that the ad appeals specifically to Black, Chicano, Puerto Rican, and Indian workers, but not to Whites.

The New Left’s demands for open admissions (no grade requirements) at colleges, for the abolition of examinations and course standards, and for the stamping out of other forms of supposed “discrimination” against non-Whites, both on campus and off, are winning the hearts of those who see every one of White society’s criteria for quality or efficiency as an obstacle designed to keep them “in their place.”

The Stick

At the same time the Reds are convincing them that communist revolution is their only hope for attaining full “human dignity.” Not only does the ruling class want to hold them down, but even the liberals are racists at heart. This is the New Left’s reason for making seemingly preposterous demands which they know that not even the most guilt-ridden liberals can go along with.

The second aim of current Red activity is the intimidation of all potential opposition. It is here that the fellow travelers play a key role.

They are the priests and ministers who piously sermonize about the equality of “all God’s children”; the schoolteachers who consciously promote the myths that Negroes discovered the North Pole, played leading roles in the American War of Independence, were the first heart surgeons, and helped win the West; the advertising executives who design TV commercials portraying a bright and carefree world of racial integration and consumer luxury; worst of all, the public officials—America’s elected and appointed “leaders”—who cheerfully lead America down the steep, one-way path to national and racial suicide, because that’s where the media support and the big campaign contributions are.

“E-e-qualite-e-e!”

These people are not card-carrying communists—neither are most of the kids who sign their names to anti-Shockley petitions when he is scheduled to speak at their schools—but they very handily do the Reds’ public relations work for them.

A New United Front

The Reds and the neo-liberals have formed a coalition against White America which is far more effective than the old United Front against “fascism” ever was.

The atmosphere of intimidation, the compulsion toward orthodoxy on all racial matters, is growing every day. Even patriots who were not afraid to stand up to the Reds on the issue of “U.S. imperialism” during the Indochina war are now forced to toe the party line by the threat of being labeled “racists.”

Red, Liberal Differences

Although America’s liberals are collaborating fully, albeit sometimes unwillingly, with the Reds on racial matters, the liberals really regard the racial crisis in a different light than do the hard-core elements of the New Left. Whereas the communists want to exacerbate the crisis and exploit it, what the liberals really want is to weasel around it.

WHITE STUDENT TURNS AWAY as a Negro attacks a White girl on the Berkeley campus of the University of California. An elderly White man tries to protect the girl, but liberal brainwashing has unmanned the younger White. He will stand aside and let the White girl be beaten rather than protect her from the Negro and risk the taint of “racism.”

They think they can make the crisis disappear by eliminating its cause, namely, inequality. Ultimately, this boils down to arriving at communist goals nonviolently instead of violently.

The Reds look forward to a wholesale massacre of “ruling class” White males accompanied by a mass rape of their females, after which a domesticated herd of exactly “equal,” coffee colored proletarians will happily enjoy the benefits of a brave-new-world-style welfare state—administered, of course, by commissars of God’s “chosen” race. The liberals would like to bypass the massacre and rape, if possible.

A Prosperous Babylon

American “conservatives,” ranging from Nixon Republicans to Wallaceites, take a position on racial matters not fundamentally different from that of the liberals.

Although, unlike the liberals, they do not want to see the White race become peacefully submerged in a rising tide of colored subhumanity, they wring their hands and say, “Alas, what else can we do?”

Their motivation is not neoliberalism but economic self-interest. The only concern in their shopkeepers’ souls is that their money-grubbing and their self-seeking pursuit of “happiness” not be disrupted.

A peaceful Babylon, a prosperous Babylon, is their desire. Its color does not matter.

Riots Are Bad for Business

So far as they are concerned, the race problem would be solved if Blacks would all work and consume—like the happy Blacks in the integrated TV commercials for Pepsi Cola and Crest—instead of rioting, robbing, raping, and swelling the welfare rolls. The conservative solution to Black unrest is to buy them off, with more concessions, more integration, more “equality.”

But there is another way. It is the White man’s age-old way. That is, it was the White man’s way before materialism destroyed his character and liberalism sapped his will and softened his spine.

That way is to meet the problem head-on and to either overcome it or perish in the attempt.

There is a growing, worldwide conflict between the White race and the non-White peoples who want for themselves what the White man’s genius and energy have created. Very well, let us not look for some way to weasel around that conflict or to convince ourselves that it does not really exist. Let us quit stalling for time and trying to appease our enemies.

Instead, let us oppose them with all the resources at our disposal. Let us place the destiny of our own people ahead of all other considerations, and let us take whatever measures are required to secure that destiny.

---

Transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom Source: http://nationalvanguard.org/2014/01/revolt-of-the-submen/

Dr. Pierce: Our Alliance Must Have a Spiritual Basis

The following is a Cosmothest lecture that Dr. Pierce gave on March 27, 1977. It is reprinted from the National Alliance BULLETIN: 
A Program for a New America 
By Dr. William L. Pierce

The topic I announced for tonight is a little misleading. I said I intended to talk about “A Program for a New America,” but a more accurate title would be “Why We Haven’t Yet Announced a Program for a New America.” That is apparently a subject which is on the minds of a great many people. When I talk to a new person who has recently read an ATTACK!  for the first time, the questions he asks tend to be of the sort: “What do you plan to do with the Blacks?” or “How do you propose to solve the Jewish problem?” or “Do you intend to do away with the income tax?”

And many of our own people, who have been reading Alliance publications for quite a while, ask similar questions. MS asked me several questions of this sort a few days ago and TO was pressing me for a program statement on the Jewish problem about two weeks ago. The answer I gave both M and T was essentially this: We don’t have any plan for dealing with the Blacks We don’t have a proposed solution for the Jewish problem.

I have the feeling that neither of them was completely satisfied with this answer, and since the questions were important ones which are also in many other people’s minds, and since I have actually given quite a bit of thought to my apparently trivial answer, I think it may be worth while elaborating on it, so you can understand just why that is the only correct answer at this time.

If the National Alliance were a political party; if theCosmotheist Community were a political party: if I or M or T were running for a seat in the U.S. Senate -- then, of course, we would have to have a program, and we would be obliged to have specific answers to all sorts of questions, not only questions about how we propose to deal with the Blacks and the Jews and income taxes, but about many, many other things also: about wages and prices, about the armed forces, about public transportation, about pollution and energy and so on.

But neither the Alliance nor our Cosmotheist Community is a political party, and I am not and, so far as I know, neither M nor T is a candidate for the Senate, and so we are not anticipating being in a position next month or next year where we will have to introduce legislation or take other concrete actions relating to the Jewish problem or taxes or anything else. So we do not have to have a program, with specific proposals for dealing with these things.

On the other hand, we could have a program, even though we are not obliged to. Anyone can sit down and daydream about what he would do if he became king tomorrow And, in fact, that seems to be what most small radical groups, on both the left and the right, spend most of their time doing. And nothing sounds sillier that a blustering 15-point ultimatum from a 10-member group of leftist revolutionaries or an announcement by a right-wing “party” consisting of five members and a mimeograph machine that they intend to send the Blacks back to Africa or to do anything else, when they clearly have neither the power to carry out their program nor even the faintest prospect of attaining that power. All they do by announcing a program is accentuate their own impotence. One immediately recognizes them for what they are: children who lack the maturity for coming to grips with the real world and who choose instead to live in their own fantasy world.

Let me back up for a moment. Everyone daydreams occasionally. I can well imagine that thousands of spiritually healthy men in this country have occasionally caught themselves fantasizing, as I have, about being trapped in an elevator for an hour with Henry Kissinger as the only other passenger--and an ice-pick. But unless we actually intend to put ice-picks up our sleeves and go looking for Mr. Kissinger, right now, it is best to put such fantasies out of our minds and think instead about the things we actually do intend to do. Fantasizing is only bad when it begins to serve as substitute for real planning. And the announcement by a political group of detailed proposals for remaking the world is only bad when it serves as a substitute for actually tackling problems of a somewhat smaller magnitude -- a magnitude that the group is actually capable of handling or has reasonable prospects of soon being able to handle. There is a name for the habit of indulging oneself in make-believe as a substitute for the real thing, and we want no part of it.

Now, we are still a small group, we are not a political party, and there’s not much chance one of us could be elected to the White House or the Senate in the next few years. But we might win a seat on a local school board, if we put up some candidates. Suppose we did. What about announcing a program then?

Well, if we were serious about wanting to win a school-board election, instead of merely using the election campaign as a forum for attracting attention and expressing our views, we would have an important decision to make; to tell the truth or not to tell the truth. That is, we could, on the one hand, run on a platform consisting o promised to oppose forced school busing -- if that were a threat in a particular school district -- and to make the schools safe by instituting a policy of permanently expelling anyone caught shaking down another student for his lunch money or assaulting a teacher. We might even go so far as to promise to overhaul the school curricula, weeding out the phony-history courses dealing with the imaginary gassing of six million Jews and the equally imaginary Black-roots topics. Such a platform would invite the wrath of all the liberals and the minority elements in the district -- including, of course, the media. Nevertheless, there are still enough White people with good instincts left in the population so that such a platform might not frighten them too much. One might conceivably win with such a platform and might not frighten them too much. One might conceivably win with such a platform, although it is certain not likely, considering the hullabaloo the liberals and the Jews and the Blacks would raise at the very prospect of having such a “racist,” such a “bigot,” such an “anti-Semite” on the school board.

On the other had, one could tell the whole truth to the public -- one could have an election platform which let it all hang out, so to speak. One could explain that it is not busing which is wrong, nor hooliganism by animalistic Black students, but racial integration itself. One could explain that the problem with what the kids are being taught in school today is not that the textbooks contain a few lies about the last war and about the supposed great contributions of the Black man to Western civilization, but that the entire basis of our educational system is rotten, that the entire American educational philosophy is wrong. And one could give promises to work to remove all non-Whites for the local schools, if elected, and to purge every Jewish and other non-Western influence form faculties and curricula -- promises which, quite obviously, one could not effectively keep, because one would bring all the power of the Federal police state down on one’s head if one tried.

Needless to say, considering the brainwashed conditions of the American electorate, the chances of winning a school-board election with such a platform are quite a bit less than with the first platform. And that is true even though one might very will run into less opposition form the media and the liberal establishment with the second platform, because then one could be dismissed as such an extremist, such a nut, that there was no significant danger of one’s winning. One’s candidacy would just be one of those freaky things we have to tolerate in a democracy, like the candidate the Prohibition Party puts up for the Presidency every four years. He receives very few votes, even from the tee-totalers, because they see no point in wasting their votes on a man who would not be allowed to carry out his program, even if he won.

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

[Lying and compromising] are inherent, 

they are inescapable, in any democracy.

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

To recapitulate: The choice, if we put up a man or a woman for a school board seat, would be this: either to announce a program, a platform, full of compromises and evasions and half-truths -- even to lie outright about our intentions, if questioned too sharply by the press: or to tell the whole truth, and thereby turn the campaign into an exercise in futility.

Now, you might very well ask at this point, “So what’s the matter with lying and compromising, considering the absolute necessity of what we’re trying to do? After all, all’s fair in war. And besides, lying and compromising are obviously what it takes to win elections under the present System -- in fact, they are inherent, they are inescapable, in any democracy. The average person, the average voter, is never capable of dealing with the truth when it is unpleasant or calls for self-discipline.” That’s what you might say.

Well, the trouble with lying and compromising is that we would not survive such tactics, in my opinion. I do not believe that any radical group, any fundamentalist group, can survive its own lies, at this stage of development. It is simply incorrect to believe that one can adopt such tactics without paying a heavy price. That is because we depend almost completely now upon true believers for everything we are doing. We receive economic and moral support, of course, from a large number of people who agree, to a greater or lesser extent, with the ideas expressed in ATTACK!, but who do not really understand our basic motivation -- and probably never will. Their thoughts and attitudes are too strongly locked into conventional patterns. But the active core of our movement consists of people who not only understand but are totally committed to the basic spiritual values form which all the ideas in ATTACK! and everything we talk about in these meetings are derived. Those are the values which are given to us by our Truth, by our Affirmation, which we recite together at the beginning of this meeting.

For the great majority of the people who send us five dollars a year for an ATTACK! subscription, it may be sufficient that we are opposed to school busing and to the Jewish domination of the news and entertainment media. But for the people who give up their careers, who expose their families to hardships, who work long hours when others are relaxing, who, in fact, may be called to put their lives on the line for the sake of what we are doing, these superficial things are not sufficient. Their commitment is rooted in the fundamentals. And they are not willing to compromise those fundamentals.

As our community grows, we expect there to come a time when we are large enough that we can diversify our efforts by setting up subsidiary organizations or front organizations which will make whatever compromises are necessary to accomplish specific, limited, political tasks -- without our central community compromising the values on which it is founded.

But that time has not yet come, and every new step forward we take now requires the winning of new true believers to our cause, people who are attracted only by the beacon of eternal Truth and not merely by a desire to find quick and superficial solutions to a few acute social or economic or racial problems, They are not, in other words, the kind of people who are continually jumping on bandwagons and the off again -- Goldwater bandwagons, Wallace bandwagons, Reagan bandwagons -- but people who make a lifetime commitment to a single Purpose. Those are the people whose hearts and minds we must win now, and so we must not lie, and we must not compromise.

Now, up to this point, I’ve given you two reasons why we haven’t announced a specific, detailed program, or platform, for solving America’s current problems and building a new and better America. The first reason is simply that we don’t want to sound foolish by announcing a lot of plans that we have no apparent prospect for being able to carry out. The second reason is that we are unwilling to say things which we do not believe for the sake of a large public acceptance, because we need those men and women who are attracted by our pure and unadulterated Truth far more than we need a larger public acceptance.

Does that mean, then, that our program is limited to the broad and general goals described on page seven of each issue of ATTACK! and that we have no idea about specifics? In ATTACK! we say:

Our members are working to build a revolutionary new order of things in American life--a new order based on natural laws.

We want to develop in America a healthy cultural and racial approach to politics reflecting an understanding of authority, discipline, duty, and honor.

We want to achieve an organic society which will not only protect and perpetuate the great, traditional values of Western civilization but will purify the Western world of the degeneracy of communism and liberalism.

We want to secure for our people control over our own destiny by eliminating from the nerve centers of our society every anti-American and anti-Western influence.

We want to safeguard our racial identity by putting an end to the present insanity of enforced racial integration, which is threatening all involved with social chaos, cultural dissolution, and racial death.

We want to foster among our people, though the recapture of our information media and our educational system, a new spiritual outlook: the outlook of free men living and working in harmony with Nature.

We want to make possible for our people a new way of live, a meaningful and satisfying way of life as opposed to the present rat race in which every man and every woman exists simply as an exploitable economic unit.

We want our country, one day to have a sane policy toward the other nations of the world, in place of the self-destructive idiocy which presently passes for American foreign policy. We need a policy based on a recognition that our interests are bound up with those of the other peoples having our common racial-cultural heritage, whether in Canada, Europe, southern Africa, Australia, or elsewhere, and that other races must develop in accord with their own distinct racial-cultural imperatives -- without help or hindrance from us except where such development poses a distinct threat to our own security.

You see, that program gives no specifics. It says, for example, that we want an end to racial integration, but it doesn’t say how we are going to achieve that goal. It doesn’t say what we have in mind for the 30 to 40 million non-Whites in this country, especially if they decide they want to stay integrated. And it doesn’t say how we intend to recapture our information media and our educational system. It doesn’t answer many questions which naturally arise about our intentions. It only says, in very general terms, what we want, but it doesn’t say how or when, and it doesn’t give details. Does that mean that we don’t have a more complete program?

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

[W]e are unwilling to say things which we do not believe 

for the sake of a large public acceptance

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

Not exactly. We have thought about specifics, and we do have a number of ideas along particular lines relating to these general goals. But we haven’t published them--or a watered-down and compromised version of them -- and we don’t intend to, for the two reason already mentioned and also for an even more fundamental reason, which I’ll tell you about in a moment. But first let me get a few more preliminaries out of the way.

In the first place, the political, social, and racial goals I just read are not going to be achieved tomorrow -- or next year. Any really detailed plan of action requires a knowledge of the circumstances, of the conditions, which will exist when that plan is implemented. We known that our goals must be achieved, but we cannot say when, and we have no way of knowing under what conditions. I don’t think it is very profitable for us to speculate publicly about what conditions will be like in this country 10 or 20 or 30 years or more from now and then to announce detailed plans based on such speculations. In fact, all we can do, even in private, is tentatively explore various contingencies which might arise, try to estimate the various probabilities, and then think about what we should do now to be able to deal effectively with the broadest range of likely future developments.

In the second place, even if we knew the circumstances ahead and could make a detailed program now, it is not likely that it would be a program we could publish. I see a future for the American people -- for White people everywhere -- which is very, very grim. I see a general public which in the future will be even less disciplined, even more decadent and spiritually ill than now, and I see some extraordinarily painful measures being required to restore our people to moral and spiritual health.

I see a future which is red with blood because of the accumulated foolishness of decades, and I hardly think this grim picture is one which the public today wants to look at, nor do I think it will help our cause to try to force them to look at it or at a political program based on it. They would reject it. They do not have sufficient understanding. They do not have the spiritual basis required to understand and accept it.

And that brings us to the essence of the reason for not publishing, at this time, a political program more detailed than the general statement of goals which appears in ATTACK! Our Purpose, after all, is not to elect a conservative Congress or to repeal the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, so that we can return to “business as usual.” It is the Creator’s Purpose; it is to begin ascending once again the never-ending Path of Life which leads from man to superman and beyond, the Path which carries our race, and what it will become, through higher and higher levels of consciousness toward the total and perfect Self-realization of the Creator.

That is our Purpose, the Purpose for which our program must be designed. It is a program which can, therefore, be only partly political in the ordinary sense and is, in fact, more spiritual than political. And it is utterly wrong to believe that we can achieve our political goals, the political portion of our program, before we have implemented our spiritual program.

That is the fundamental mistake of virtually all the right-wing parties and groups today, whether they are running candidates for office or not. They seem to believe that they can radically transform the political, social, and racial scenes without a spiritual transformation, a spiritual reawakening, of our people first. It cannot be done.

We have, I am afraid, a natural tendency, a natural weakness, which leads us to this mistake. It is the tendency to place all or most of the blame for what ails us on others instead of on ourselves. It is very easy to blame the Blacks for the fact that our cities have become filthy, crime-infested jungles and our schools combat zones where very little is learned. And it is very easy to blame the Jews too, not only for allowing the Blacks to do what they do, but for the corruption of our economy and the undermining of our national defense.

But it is a fact that when this country was formed we had no Black problem and no Jewish problem. We ourselves, our own people, were in total and complete control of our destiny, and everything that has happened to us had happened, in a sense, with our own consent.

We certainly cannot say that what the Blacks have done to our cities and to our schools was done by sneaking up on us and pulling off some sort of coup. They have done it gradually, over a period of more that a hundred years, and we failed to stop it. We failed to act even before the Jews had captured our news and entertainment media and began injecting their spiritual poison into us. Just as with the Blacks, we had every opportunity to halt what the Jews were doing, but we did not.

And the reason we did not is essentially a spiritual reason. We allowed ourselves to fall prey to these alien influences because we did not have a spiritual basis for resisting them. We did not have the proper values, the proper priorities, the proper standards, the proper attitudes and goals; we did not have the proper understanding, the proper degree of consciousness of our identity and our mission. Our lives, individually and collectively, were not committed to the One True Purpose. And until we have cured that situation, until we have cured our own inner sickness, we cannot hope to deal successfully with our external enemies.

Now, this cure, this healing of ourselves, is much, more than a matter of education, much more than merely getting the facts to the public about race and about what the Jews are doing. It is primarily a matter of bringing about the inner reorientation that will give the public the desire and the will to act on those facts. This is something which I have talked about before -- it is largely the subject of our Introductory Meeting Tape -- and I will not repeat myself on that score tonight, except to recapitulate our reason for our program being of the nature that it is.

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

We allowed ourselves to fall prey to these alien influences because we did not have a spiritual basis for resisting them.

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

Other groups -- third parties and fourth parties and what have you -- will continue issuing political programs and running people for office. And that is fine. We certainly have no complaint about that. Such activity at least calls public attention to certain problems and serves an educational purpose, although a quite limited one.

But we are fundamentally different form these other groups, and we will remain different. We have stated some, though not all, of our general goals. But our program is not one of working directly through ordinary -- or extraordinary -- political processes to achieve these goals. We understand that they cannot be achieved by themselves, without first laying a proper spiritual basis for them. Therefore, our program is directed almost entirely toward the accomplishment of this spiritual prerequisite for our political goals. Our program is concerned now, and will be concerned for the foreseeable future, with awakening a consciousness of identity and mission in an elite minority of our people, a minority in whom the Divine Spark, the Universal Urge, the Creator’s immanent Self-consciousness, burns brighter than it does in the rest, and when welding this awakened elite into a growing community of blood and consciousness, a spiritual community primarily rather than a political one, a community imbued with an understanding of our Truth and unconditionally dedicated to our Purpose, which is the Creator’s Purpose.

When this community is strong enough so that it can begin realistically to contemplate the implementation of our political goals in the larger society -- that is, when we have crossed the second threshold of which I spoke to you some weeks ago -- then, and only then, will we formulate and announce a full and detailed political program.

And I might make one final observation. I said our spiritual program is a prerequisite for our political program, but it is not just a prerequisite, not merely a prerequisite. It stands on its own. In fact, if I had to say which program is of more fundamental importance, I would immediately say it is our spiritual program.

If, by some miracle, we could carry out our political program directly, without a general spiritual reorientation fist, I would have no faith in the results. They would not last. But as long as our community survives, as long as there are at least one man and one woman of our race left who are committed to our Truth and able to raise their children and pass that Truth on to them, then even if this country were obliterated utterly, even if Western civilization were obliterated utterly, I would still have confidence in the future and in the eventual implementation of a new version of our political program, no matter how long that might take.