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

---

Dear NATIONAL VANGUARD Reader.

 

            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 19^th 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.

 

Sincerely

 

 

William L. Pierce, NATIONAL VANGUARD Editor

Dr. Pierce on Feminism: The Great Destroyer

Feminism: The Great Destroyer
An Interview with Dr. William Luther Pierce
By Kevin Alfred Strom

K.A.S.: There is a continuing public debate about the role of women in our society and the related subjects of sexism and feminism. One example was the hullabaloo that occurred during the confirmation of Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court. Feminists and their claque in the media charged that this confirmation was an affirmation of the "sexism" rampant in the U.S. political establishment. The cure for this alleged problem is to get more women into positions of political power, according to many people in the media.

Another example was the uproar about a drunken party several years ago in Las Vegas for Navy fliers at which several women who showed up were manhandled -- in particular, a female flier who later complained to the media about her treatment. The news coverage of the Las Vegas party brought demands from media spokesmen and politicians for rooting out the "sexism" in the armed forces and giving women equal roles in everything from infantry combat to flying fighter jets. Do you see any real or lasting significance in this debate?

W.L.P.: Oh, it's certainly a significant debate. The significance is perhaps not exactly what the media spokesmen would have us believe it is, but there is a significance there nevertheless. Getting at the real significance, pulling it out into the light where everyone can see it and examine it, requires a little care, though. There's a lot of misdirection, a lot of deliberate deception in the debate.

Look at the first example you just mentioned. The controlled media would have us believe that the approval of Clarence Thomas by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the face of Anita Hill's complaints about him demonstrates a callous insensitivity to women's welfare. But what were Anita Hill's complaints? They were that when Thomas had been her boss in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission he had asked her several times for a date and that on one occasion he had begun describing to her a pornographic film he had seen the evening before. She never alleged that he had demanded sexual favors from her, threatened her, or put his hands on her. Her complaint was that he had shown a normal, healthy interest in her as a woman. He had asked her for a date.

Talking to her about a pornographic film may have indicated a certain lack of refinement on his part -- at least that would be the case if the two of them were members of a traditional White society, in which gentlemen didn't talk about pornographic films in the presence of ladies, at least not in the office -- but what the hell, the folks who were raising such a fuss about Thomas's behavior are, like both Clarence and Anita themselves, all members of the brave, New World Order society, which is neither White nor traditional. It's a so-called "multicultural" society in which there are no gentlemen and there are no ladies; there are just male and female people, and the female people are no different from the male people: they are just as bawdy, just as vulgar, just as aggressive.

K.A.S.: So you believe that the whole thing was just a tempest in a teapot, that it really wasn't significant?

W.L.P.: A tempest in a teapot, yes, but still very significant. One aspect of the Clarence and Anita circus was that it was simply seized on and used by people with a certain political agenda, and so of course their tendency was to make as much ado as they could about it. But another aspect is that many of the feminists who were screeching against Thomas and against the Senate's approval of him really were indignant that the man had asked Anita Hill for a date. They really were outraged that he had an interest in her as a woman and did not simply treat her as another lawyer in his office. Men are not supposed to notice women as women, but only as people, and radical feminists really do become angry if one drops this unisex pretense even for a minute. Open a door for one of them and you'll get a nasty glare; call one of them "my dear" or refer to her as a "girl" and you'll be slapped with a civil rights lawsuit.

The fuss about this Tailhook Association party in Las Vegas reveals the same sort of nuttiness. I mean, what do you expect when a bunch of Navy fliers throw a wild, drunken orgy? They had held their party in Las Vegas several years in a row, and the party had gained a bit of a reputation. It was notorious. Everybody in Naval aviation knew all about it. The Navy women who went to the party knew what to expect. They joined the orgy. Any woman who didn't want to be pawed by drunken fliers and have her panties pulled off stayed away. Certainly, if these Navy fliers had shanghaied some unsuspecting woman off the street and forced her to submit to indignities, I would be the first to call for their being put up against a wall. I'll go further and say that I really don't approve of drunkenness under any circumstances -- although I believe it's only realistic to accept drinking as a fact of military life. But I cannot work up much sympathy for a woman who, knowing what the Tailhook parties are like, decides that she will pretend that she really isn't a woman but rather is a genderless Navy flier and so can go to the Tailhook party without worrying about her panties.

K.A.S.: That's really irrational isn't it? It doesn't make sense to ignore human nature like that.

W.L.P.: Irrationality seems to be the rule rather than the exception in public affairs these days. Feminism, of course, is just another exercise in reality denial, which has become such a common pastime. There are too many people out there who seem to believe that if we pretend that men and women are the same, they really will be; that if we pretend there are no differences between Blacks and Whites except skin color, the differences will disappear; that if we pretend that homosexuality is a normal, healthy condition, it will be.

Feminism is one of the most destructive aberrations being pushed by the media today, because it has an immediate effect on nearly all of us. There are many sectors of the economy, for example, in which racial-quota hiring and promotion - so-called "affirmative action" -- isn't a real problem, and so White people who work in those sectors remain relatively unaffected by the racial aspects of America's breakdown, but feminism is becoming pervasive; there are few relationships between men and women, especially between younger men and women, which will not suffer from the effects of feminism in the near future.

K.A.S.: You just referred to feminism as "a destructive aberration" and spoke of the breakdown of America. Are the two things connected?

W.L.P.: When homosexuals come out of the closet and women go into politics, empires crumble. Or, to say that a way which more accurately reflects the cause-effect relationship, when empires begin to crumble, then the queers come out of the closet and women go into politics. Which is to say, that in a strong, healthy society, feminism isn't a problem. But when a society begins to decay -- when the men lose their self-confidence -- then feminism raises its head and accelerates the process of decay.

K.A.S.: Before we go further, exactly what do you mean by feminism? Can you define the word for us?

W.L.P.: Feminism is a system of ideas with several distinguishing characteristics. First, it's a system in which gender is regarded as the primary identifying characteristic, more important even than race. Second, and paradoxically, it's a system in which men and women are regarded as innately identical in all intellectual and psychical traits, and in all physical traits except those most obviously dependent on the configuration of the genitalia. Third, it's a system in which filling a traditionally male role in society is valued above being a wife and mother, a system in which the traditional female roles are denigrated. Finally, it's a system in which men and women are regarded as mutually hostile classes, with men traditionally in the role of oppressors of women; and in which it is regarded as every woman's primary duty to support the interests of her fellow women of all races against the male oppressors.

I should add that not every woman who describes herself as a feminist would go along 100% with that definition. Real feminism is not just an intellectual thing; it's a sickness, with deep emotional roots. Some women just want to be trendy, but are otherwise normal. They just want to be fashionable, and feminism is held up by the media as fashionable these days. It's Politically Correct.

And while we're at it, we should note that there is an analogous malady, usually called male chauvinism, which expresses itself in a range of attitudes toward women ranging from patronizing contempt to outright hatred. Feminists often attribute the growth of feminism to a reaction against male chauvinism. Actually the latter, which never afflicted more than a minority of White men, has been more an excuse for the promoters of feminism than a cause of that disorder.

K.A.S.: OK. So that's what feminism is. Now, in what way is it destructive? How is it connected to America's decline?

W.L.P.: Feminism is destructive at several different levels. At the racial level it is destructive because it divides the race against itself, robbing us of racial solidarity and weakening us in the struggle for racial survival; and because it reduces the White birthrate, especially among educated women. It also undermines the family by taking women out of the home and leaving the raising of children to television and day-care centers.

At a personal or social level feminism does its damage by eroding the traditional relationship between men and women. That traditional relationship is not based on any assumption of equality or sameness. It's not a symmetrical relationship, but rather a complementary one. It's based on a sexual division of labor, with fundamentally different roles for men and women: men are the providers and the protectors, and women are the nurturers. Men bring home the bacon, and they guard the den; women nourish the children and tend the hearth.

Many people today sneer at this traditional relationship. They think that in the New World Order there is no need to protect the den or the condo or whatever, because these days we're all very civilized, and that all one needs to do to bring home the bacon is hop in the car and drive to the nearest shopping mall, and, of course, a woman can do that just as well as a man. Therefore, because the times have changed, roles should change. There's no longer any reason for a division of labor; now we can all be the same, claim the apologists for feminism.

Now, I have a couple of problems with that line of reasoning. First, I'm not as eager to toss million-year-old traditions in the ash-can as the New World Order enthusiasts are, because I'm not as confident in the ability of the government to provide protection for all of us as they are, nor am I as confident that there'll always be bacon at the neighborhood shopping mall and we won't have to revert to earlier ways of getting it. Actually, I'm an optimist by nature, but I'm not so optimistic as to believe that I'll never be called on to use my strength or my fighting instincts to protect my family. In fact, every time I watch the evening news on television, I become more convinced that there's a very good chance we're going to end up having to fight for our bacon within the next few years.

In the second place, Mother Nature made a very big investment in her way of doing things over the past few million years of primate evolution. It's not simply a matter of our deciding that we don't like Mother Nature's plan because it's not fashionable any longer, and so we'll change it. We are what we are. That is, we are what millions of years of evolution have made us. A man is a man in every cell of his body and his brain, not just in his genitalia, and a woman is a woman to the same degree. We were very thoroughly and precisely adapted to our different roles. We can't change reality by passing a civil rights law. When we deceive ourselves into thinking that we can, there's hell to pay. Which is to say that we end up with a lot of very confused, disappointed, and unhappy men and women. We also end up with a lot of very angry men and women, which accounts for the feminists and the male chauvinists.

It's true, of course, that some women might be perfectly happy as corporate raiders or professional knife fighters, just as some men have willingly adapted to the New World Order by becoming less aggressive and more "sensitive." But it doesn't work that way for normal men and women. What the normal man really wants and needs is not just a business partner and roommate of the opposite sex, but a real woman whom he can protect and provide for. And what a normal woman really wants and needs with every fiber of her being, regardless of how much feminist propaganda she's soaked up, is a real man, who can love and protect her and provide for her and their children. If she's watched too much television and has let herself be persuaded that what she wants instead of a strong, masculine man is a sensitive wimp who'll let her wear the trousers in the family half the time, she's headed for a severe collision with the reality of her own nature. She'll end up making herself very neurotic, driving a few men into male chauvinism, and becoming a social liability. Our society just can't afford any more of that sort of foolishness. If feminism were only making individuals unhappy, I wouldn't be very concerned about it. I've always believed that people were entitled to make themselves as unhappy as they wanted to. But unfortunately, it's wrecking our society and weakening our race, and we must put a stop to it soon.

K.A.S.: How do you propose to do that? The feminist movement really seems to be snowballing, and as you noted the mass media are all for it. It would seem pretty difficult to stop. Anyone who opposes the feminists is perceived as a male chauvinist who wants to take away women's rights and confine them to the kitchen and the bedroom.

W.L.P.: Well, of course, I'm not in favor of taking anything away from women. I'd like to give women the option of being women again in the traditional way, in Nature's way, the option of staying home and taking care of their children and making a home for their husbands. It wasn't the feminists, of course, who changed our economy so that it's no longer possible for many families to survive unless both the man and the woman are employed outside the home. A society which forces women out of the home and into offices and factories is not a healthy society. I'd like for our society to be changed so that it's possible once again for mothers to stay at home with their children, the way they did back before the Second World War, back before the New World Order boys got their hands on our economy and launched their plan to bring the living standard of the average American wage earner down to the average Mexican level. I think many will want to stay home when it's possible to do so. And I am sure that if we provide the right role models for women, most will want to. If we regain control of our television industry, of our news and entertainment and advertising industries, we can hold up quite a different model of the ideal woman from the one being held up today.

Most women, just like most men, want to be fashionable. They try to do and be what's expected of them. We just need to move that model back closer to what Mother Nature had in mind. Then there's no need to take away anybody's rights. A few female lawyers with butch haircuts can easily be tolerated in a healthy society -- a few flagpole sitters, a few glass eaters, a few of all sorts of people -- so long as their particular brand of oddness doesn't begin undermining the health of the whole society.

K.A.S.: But what about the people who control the media now -- what about the legislators -- who are on the feminist bandwagon? They are very powerful. What will you do about them?

W.L.P.: We'll do whatever is necessary. Now we're helping people understand feminism and the other ills which are afflicting our society. Understanding really must come first. After understanding comes organization. And then, as I said, whatever is necessary.

And I should add this: Whatever flies in the face of reality is inherently self-destructive. But we cannot wait for this disease to burn itself out. The toll will be too great. We have to stand up against it and oppose it now. We have to change people's attitudes about feminism being fashionable. We have to make the politicians who've jumped on the feminist bandwagon understand that there will be a heavy price to pay, some day, for their irresponsibility.

K.A.S.: Do you really think that you can change the behavior of the politicians?

W.L.P.: Perhaps not, but we must at least give them a chance to change. Unfortunately in the case of the politicians most of them have many crimes besides an advocacy of feminism to answer for, and they know that they can only be hanged once. 

Dividing the Race

Editorial

Dividing the Race

When it was cited by Niccolo Machiavelli early in the 16th century, it already was a strategy which the enemies of our people have used successfully against us more than once, and it is the strategy which is responsible for our present peril.

Surprisingly, the division of our people is widely discussed in front of us by the enemies who have accomplished it, although the discussions are heavily laden with disingenuousness: the heterosexual White male, they gloat, has been dispossessed; his power has been taken by minorities and women, and there is nothing he can do about it except learn to live with the fait accompli.

Actually, it's not that simple. The division itself is far more complicated than heterosexual White males on one side and Jews, homosexuals, Blacks, Asians, mestizos, and women on the other. The most important complication is that many White women, probably a majority, are on the side of their men; and many heterosexual White males have joined the other side. Furthermore, there is much which can be done about the situation.

The division we would like to see, of course, is all heterosexual White men and women on one side and all Jews homosexuals, Blacks Asians, and mestizos on the other. Then we would be ready for the shooting to start, and we would settle matters pretty quickly. The Jews understand that, and that is why their efforts have been directed not only at empowering the non-Whites and the perverts but also toward alienating as many White men and women from their own race as possible.

I remember talking to groups of White college students 25 years ago and pointing out to them where the "civil rights" agitation, which even then had become quite fashionable on campuses, was heading. I told them that it would lead to the decline of our morals and our culture, the disintegration of our society, and finally to a race war between Whites and Blacks in America. Most of the students just listened without noticeable reaction, as if they were watching another television program. Only a small minority expressed either a favorable or unfavorable response. Nearly all of the former were males: unfortunately, many of them males with a low testosterone level, who crept up to me quietly afterward and expressed their approval when no one else was around to hear them.

Both males and females were among my vocal opponents, but I was always sad to note that the girls tended to be more numerous and more hostile than the boys. After a talk I gave at the University of Maryland, one White girl proudly, " Well, if there's a race war between Whites and Blacks, I'll be shooting at you from the Black side."

I spoke to a class of seniors at a private high school, also in Maryland, and while the teacher smirked in the back of the class a blonde girl in the front row sat next to the only Black male in the class and kissed and fondled him throughout my talk, in an obviously prearranged effort to disconcert me.

Women are much more fashion conscious than men. Of course, there are men, even heterosexual men, who worry very much about wearing the latest style in cuff links or ties, but women have always been far ahead of them in such matters, far more easily persuaded that they absolutely had to buy new wardrobes every time the fashion moguls raised or lowered hems an inch.

The Jews, to their credit, understood before the rest of us that the female tendency to be a slave to fashion is an innate, sex-linked characteristic, and they also realized that ideological fashions could bind women as strongly as fashions in dress and ornament. It's no coincidence that nearly all of the influential gurus and heroines of feminism of the past half-century have been Jewesses: Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Andrea Dworkin, Shulamith Firestone, Lucy Komisar, Lynda Schor, Gloria Steinem, ad nauseam.

Thus, the arbiters of fashion in Hollywood and New York who used the cinema and television to make racial mixing fashionable among the trendy set also made feminism fashionable among White women. The madness has gone so far today that substantial numbers of otherwise normal, heterosexual White women have let themselves be persuaded that not only can they be just as capable combat pilots or firefighters as men but that only women really know how to give women sexual fulfillment.

Fortunately, most of them have not yet brought practice into line with that doctrine, but they have managed to make themselves thoroughly neurotic trying to reconcile doctrine with instinct. More relevant to the matter under discussion here, many women have let themselves be maneuvered into a position where they view any assault on the currently fashionable ideology of racial equality as an assault on their "right" as women to be military school cadets or corporate raiders. These women have a subconscious understanding that this "right" is just as artificial as the "equality" claimed by non-Whites and homosexuals, and they have accepted these others as their allies in fending off the efforts of heterosexual White males to drag them out of the cockpit and the boardroom and put them back into the kitchen, the bedroom, and the nursery. They have bought the Jewish argument that heterosexual White males should be regarded with suspicion until the latter have demonstrated their "sensitivity."

Unfortunately, all too many men have done just that. Men may not be quite as trendy as women, on the average, but that's not saying much for them. The difference is a matter of degree, not kind. There are all too many men who are as afraid of having a Politically Incorrect idea in their heads as the average woman is of being caught in unfashionable attire: if "sensitivity" is "in," they gladly will put on the most disgusting display of it. And there are men who simply have no ideas in their heads except getting ahead. Unlike the "sensitive" ones, they have no shortage of testosterone, but they also have no sense of responsibility or propriety: they will ally themselves to whatever faction seems to offer them the best career prospects, and they will pay lip service to the corresponding ideology. Like the feminists, they will regard any other man who tries to rock the boat they are in as the enemy.

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

...[W]e may find ourselves allied with many people whom in the past we barely tolerated: the religious zealots of the Christian right, the essentially conservative types, [etc.]...

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

Actually, that's too stark a picture. Most people, on both sides, are not really partisans. They're just spectators, who find themselves, by accident more than by choice, in one camp or the other, and they sing along with the crowd without really thinking about the meaning of the words.

That makes the division no less real and no less dangerous for us, however. If looking at the great, passive middle tends to blur the division, it is sharp enough at the extremes, where there is passion aplenty: passion most often expressed as hate.

In the trendier circles of Washington, D.C., and other large, eastern cities, there is more bigotry than there ever was in a Ku Klux Klan klavern. It may be that back in the 1930s some of the more backward Klansmen didn't like Catholics or foreigners (although the Klan since has had the good sense to drop those divisions), but that's nothing compared to what the Politically Correct bigots in Washington don't like today.

Walk into one of their cocktail parties wearing a National Rifle Association button, and the conversation will freeze as suddenly as it would if Nelson Mandela showed up at a Klan picnic. If you speak with a rural accent, you will be regarded with immediate suspicion. If you are from the South, then you'll be expected to prove that it's only the "New" South of Jews, Blacks, and Politically Correct yuppies with which you have any connections. If you're especially "Aryan-looking" (a la Rutger Hauer or Darryl Hannah, for example), you can deflect hostility by coming with a Black date.

In these circles the word "White," used as a racial designation, evokes instant fear and loathing, especially among the Whites. They usually won't admit their hatred of their own kind to nontrendies, but among themselves they are quite open about it. They all agree that it is a good thing that North America is becoming darker, and they look forward eagerly to the day when the continent will have a non-White majority. Things will be much better then, they all aver: the greatest evil on the planet, White racism, finally will be suppressed, and love and brotherhood will reign.

When they watch a cowboys-and-Indians movie, they always root for the Indians: when a White is scalped or tied to a stake to be burned, they cheer. Reading The Turner Diaries, or any book in which the Whites win, "sickens" them, (to borrow the word most often used by mainstream journalists to describe their reaction to my novel in the reviews they wrote of it following the Oklahoma City bombing). Viewing Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will, with its magnificent portrayal of proud, racially conscious White men and women, is a "chilling" experience, they say, even though it was made by the greatest woman cinematic genius.

Their dream world is one high in melanin and low in testosterone. It is a world where strong women, wearing trousers and holding the key executive positions, share power with Blacks, Jews, and other non-Whites, and everyone lives in a city much like New York. Everything will be run by committees, and problems will be solved by talking them to death. White males will be tolerated in subservient positions, if they are either homosexual or have been "sensitized." This picture of the world is one which has been drilled into them during the past 30 years, starting at puberty with MTV and Politically Correct comic books.

They tend to fall into the mistaken belief that they are the universe, because they live inside a media-generated illusion-world and talk only with each other. But they do chatter in nervous fright whenever they are reminded that there are some of those awful heterosexual White males left out there who haven't been sensitized yet. They look to the government to protect them from this threat and maintain their empowerment, and they are hot to have the government use whatever measures are expedient for that purpose. In particular, they want a roundup of guns and a clampdown on Politically Incorrect speech.

Then there's our side of the division. Close to the middle are those White men and women who still believe that the traditional family, with a male breadwinner and protector and a female homemaker, is not only worth saving, but that it's the natural way for men and women to live and by far the best way to raise emotionally and spiritually healthy children.

Unfortunately, the changes in American society during the past half century or so have made the traditional family an endangered species. In 1940 most married women were full-time homemakers. Between 1940 and 1990 the portion of married women working outside the home increased by a factor of four, to approximately 60 percent. More than half of married mothers with children under 17 years of age are now employed full time outside the home, and the percentage rises every year.

This change has not been entirely a matter of choice: increasing urbanization of the economy, with jobs moving from rural to urban areas, and the rising cost of housing relative to per capita income have made it much more difficult to maintain a family on one income. Greatly exacerbating the situation, however, has been a trend in lifestyles toward ever greater consumption. People on both sides of the division have let themselves be persuaded that they cannot live without many things that their grandparents found quite unnecessary.

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

Close to the middle are those White men and women who still believe

that the traditional family, with a male breadwinner and protector and

a female homemaker, is not only worth saving, but that it's the natural way

for men and women to live and by far the best way to raise

emotionally and spiritually healthy children.

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

The division at the middle, then, is not between people who are members of traditional families on our side and those with working wives and mothers on the other. Rather, it is between those who would live in traditional families if they could, and those who regard traditional families as old-fashioned and repressive and look on the present trend with favor.

Looking at the division from a different viewpoint, those near the middle on our side are those who value freedom above comfort and security, while the converse is true for those on the other side. The herd instinct is a little weaker on our side than on theirs. They have a near monopoly on authoritarian personalities: on people who like to speak with reverence of “our President” and “our government” and to hate anyone who lacks their reverence.

We look to ourselves to satisfy our needs; they look to the government. We also tend to live more in tune with our instincts-more the way God intended us to live, the Christians on our side would say-while the others favor life-styles as artificial as their politics.

As we move further away from the middle, the passion becomes stronger. Trendy people-people who always want to do only what everyone else is doing and would never dream of striking out in a new direction, away from the crowd, or trying something they hadn't seen on television-feel comfortable with lots of rules and regulations. Things that aren't regulated by the government make them nervous. They like to buy licenses and apply for permits and pay fees and be told just what's permissible and what isn't. It's like having a stamp of assurance from the government that what they're doing is fashionable, or at least acceptable.

They cannot imagine the feeling of rage and resentment that rises in people with a more independent or adventurous nature when the latter are confronted with one of these artificial government barriers. Here's an example: When I was a kid I loved fireworks. I could go to a fireworks store and buy whatever I wanted. I could ride my bicycle to a vacant lot and set off my firecrackers and bottle rockets without violating any laws. Today there are very few places left in the United States where kids can do that. Certainly, there always were inept dolts who managed to blow off a finger or lose an eye playing with fireworks, just as there are people who will manage to shoot themselves or a member of the family by accident if they get their hands on a gun. We used to be willing to accept such risks. We were aware that if you're not careful you can hurt yourself. We understood that living was an inherently dangerous business. We preferred a world in which there were freedom and risks to a supposedly safer world walled in by rules.

By the time I was 12 years old or so, I had developed a more serious interest in rockets and related matters than store-bought fireworks could satisfy. I used to take the money I made mowing lawns in Dallas, Texas, and get an adult to give me a ride downtown to Greene Brothers, the big laboratory supply warehouse, where I would give a clerk the list of chemicals and glassware I wanted, and then I would walk through the warehouse with him while he found the items for me on the shelves. A dollar would buy more nitric acid or powdered aluminum in those days than it will today. The important thing , though, was that I didn't have to fill out any forms or show the clerk a permit from the government to buy what I wanted.

Pyrotechnics isn't everyone's thing, of course, but the same thicket of government restrictions has overgrown nearly every activity that's not on the beaten path: flying your own airplane, building your own house, collecting your own firearms, operating your own business. It can't be that the government is trying to protect us with its restrictions: it still pays farmers to grow an addictive drug which causes the deaths of 400,000 cigarette smokers in the United States every year. Whatever the government's reason, it is infuriating to plenty of people besides me.

I live in one of those rare, backwoodsy places where there are no building codes, and a property owner doesn't have to ask city hall for permission to dig a hole in his backyard or change his plumbing around. He just does it, and it's nobody's business but his. The trendier locals are trying to change that. They believe that building codes are “progressive” or something of the sort, and they want to have the same sort of rules that property owners in Philadelphia and New York have. Fortunately, there are plenty of other folks like me around here who are resisting, but the trendies are looking for allies in the state government. People who live in New York just wouldn't understand, but there are those of us who really get steamed about such things.

It used to be that men valued their personal honor above all other things, and governments understood and accommodated themselves to their citizens' sense of honor, albeit reluctantly in many cases. That was a long time ago, of course. Even some politicians had a sense of personal honor. (That was a very long time ago.)

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

It used to be that men valued their personal honor above

all other things, and government understood and accommodated

themselves to their citizens' sense of honor...

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

In those olden days, if a man were in public with his wife, and a stranger made a lewd remark to her or put his hands on her, the offender could count on having to defend his life. If the husband killed or seriously injured him, and there were witnesses to the original offense, the husband would have been justified in his actions, in the eyes of his peers and of the government. Similar considerations applied if the original offense were against the husband himself. The corollary to this was that people tended to be more polite in public, more careful not to give offense.

How different it is today! The feminists become infuriated at the mere suggestion that a man should feel any obligation to protect a woman. Protection suggests a sense of possession. Protection is a job for the government, not for individual men. And the Jews, who always have regarded with a sneering sort of amusement and disbelief the Aryans' willingness to fight for the sake of honor, have joined the feminists in moving us all into a more enlightened era, where honor counts for nothing.

There are, of course, a few of us whose hearts are still back in the Stone Age. We may control ourselves most of the time. We may swallow insults and other offenses without reprisal, just to stay out of jail; but when we do, we feel dishonored, and when we feel dishonored a feeling of hatred begins building in us: hatred against the government which forced us to dishonor ourselves, hatred against the politicians and the bureaucrats and the other supporters of the government.

I am acquainted with the details of a recent case in which a White man and his wife were insulted in a mall parking lot by a Black who had nearly hit their car with his. After screaming his insults about White “crackers” and “honkies” and being told in turn that he and his fellow “niggers” should go back to Africa, the Black drove off, then came back a few minutes later with a Black friend and a brick. Advancing on foot with the brick in hand toward the car in which the White man and his wife were sitting, the Black screamed at the White man, “I'm gonna smash your motherf-ing head in.” Whereupon, the White man tore open his glove compartment, grabbed a pistol, and shot the Black dead.

During the subsequent trial, both the defense and prosecution witnesses agreed that the Black had threatened to smash the White man's head with a brick. The only difference in the testimony was that the prosecution's witnesses-the Black's male friend and a White woman-said that the Black dropped his brick and took a couple of steps backward just before he was shot, while the defense said that the Black still was holding the brick when the White man fired. The key to the outcome of the trial, however, was that the prosecution emphasized that the White man, who was a university graduate with a good job and a stable marriage, happened to be a “racist,” who didn't believe that Blacks should be permitted to remain in America. The Jewish prosecutor read excerpts to the court from Politically Incorrect books and letters seized from the White couple's home.

The mostly White jury, showing to the world that it had no sympathy for White “racists,” brought in a Politically Correct verdict of guilty of premeditated murder, and the White judge sentenced the White man to life in prison. Such an egregious injustice may be considered only a fluke by some-the consequence of an unlucky combination of a “sensitive” jury, a Jewish prosecutor, a politically ambitious judge, and an inept defense lawyer-but those who pay attention to such matters can cite a hundred similar cases from recent years.

The Jews, the feminists, and their collaborators would like to lock up all of us Stone Age men, who would rather fight than crawl. Our presence makes them uncomfortable. And so they have perverted the “justice” system to serve their purpose. And they're getting away with it.

Or are they? Every time they have a success of the sort cited above, every time they gloat and smirk publicly about such a victory over heterosexual White males, the hatred against them builds, the burning desire to tear out their throats and smash their heads grows.

Which brings us back to sex again. Heterosexual White males who used to know instinctively what to do when a Black attacked them with a brick also used to know instinctively how to behave when they wanted a mate-or even the temporary company of a woman. The changing of all the rules to suit feminist and Jewish notions of “equality” has confused many of them.

Most of us, to be sure, have learned to adapt. Whether we liked it or not, we learned the new etiquette. We also learned that there still are old-fashioned, unreconstructed women to be found-feminine rather than feminist women-if one knows where to look for them. But they definitely are scarcer than they used to be, and the fellows who have a harder time adapting to unnatural conditions have suffered accordingly. There's hardly anything to make a man angrier than depriving him of a woman's company for an extended period.

So here's what it all boils down to: the war between the Clinton constituency and the rest of us heating up. Astute observers have been commenting for years on the “culture war” raging in America. It was a war between those on one side who believe that children should be raised in a disciplined environment and have old-fashioned values instilled in them, and those on the other side who believe that all any child needs is a big dose of “multiculturalism” via MTV every day.

The folks on the old-fashioned side were fighting with one hand tied behind their backs, though, because they were careful never to admit even to themselves that the “culture war” is really a race war: that what makes MTV so elementally evil is that it is Jewish, that it is the fiendishly crafted instrument of the sinister Jewish billionaire Sumner Redstone. They railed against “multiculturalism,” but they retreated in embarrassment when the multiculturalists charged them with “racism.”

So obviously the Clintonistas were winning, and the rest of us were losing. One easy triumph after another caused the Clinton constituency to throw caution to the winds and to push ahead more rapidly and more brazenly. Homosexuals, radical feminists, and Blacks were brought into more policy-making positions in the government than ever before. Jews came out from behind the scenes and assumed more visible positions of power: on the Supreme Court, in the Cabinet, and as movers and shakers in the Congress. Military leaders who were considered insufficiently “sensitive” were canned.

The Jews defined a new category of crime-”hate crime”-and got the government to go along. The Politically Correct elitists announced that the Constitution is obsolete, and the government decided to prove it by making bloody examples of dissidents, first shooting in cold blood the wife and child of a White separatist at Ruby Ridge and then burning to death nearly a hundred Second Amendment dissidents at Waco.

All of this became a mite too much for us unsensitized heterosexual White males. We decided to make ourselves heard, and we began speaking out more loudly than before. We began using the Internet, and we began making radio broadcasts on those few stations not yet under Jewish control. And a few crazies among us did some wild and stupid things: shooting abortion doctors, bombing a government building, shooting up the White House.

The Clinton constituency responded by announcing the need to silence dissident voices: specifically, to keep Politically Incorrect messages off the Internet and Politically Incorrect radio programs off the airwaves.

Actually, this response was only the unveiling of a small part of a scheme on which they had been laboring for years. The Jews want in the United States the same sort of laws they had succeeded in forcing on the populations of Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, and a dozen other White countries, where it is now illegal for Whites to dispute the Jewish version of history or to criticize Jewish efforts to “multiculturalize” their people. They had succeeded in introducing codes of Politically Correct expression at most universities, in many of the larger corporations, and in the government itself, but they were still wondering how they could put real teeth into these codes by criminalizing what they cleverly refer to as “hate speech” when the Oklahoma City bombers presented them with a golden opportunity. Now they're trying to make the most of it.

It remains to be seen how successful they will be. If they do succeed even partly in their efforts to scuttle the Bill of Rights-even if all they're able to do is knock another brick or two out of the Second Amendment and close down a few Politically Incorrect broadcasters-I believe they'll get a response from us Stone Age types which will make everything which has happened so far seem like a church social.

And I believe that they will be at least that successful. Certainly, free speech has never been truly popular. Joe and Jill Sixpack have never understood why anyone should be permitted to write or say things that offend conventional people. During the 1960s, when the Jews were offending a great many conventional people through their “counterculture” campaign, the freedom to shout obscenities and preach treason was zealously promoted by their trendy collaborators in the cultural, academic, and media establishments. That era is far behind us now, however, and the same trendy collaborators are warning everyone that we really must outlaw “hate speech.”

That'll be another step for them in the division of our people. Many people on our side who're near the middle now will be pulled far out toward the extreme. This radicalization will make us stronger.

The authoritarian types will remain where they are for the most part, on the other side near the middle, supporting “our President” and “our government” as self-righteously as ever. About the only ones we can expect to cross over to us in substantial numbers are those whose oxen are gored by changes. Fortunately, more and more oxen will be gored, as the Jews rush to cram everything they can down our throats while they still have a grip on the situation.

In particular, their continuing drive to usher in the New World Order as soon as possible, with its attendant deindustrialization of America and the proletarianization of the White middle class, will force many to take a position with us who would have preferred to remain squarely on the fence. We should be thankful that the Jews' campaign for the division and destruction of our people is committed to a number of fronts simultaneously, and they cannot easily pull back on one while pushing forward on another.

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

Thus, even as the division of our people continues, new unions will be formed.

By the time the shooting begins in earnest things almost certainly

will not be divided along the lines we would prefer. What we must strive

for now is to ensure that those on our side of the division will

be able to win.

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

In our effort to defeat their campaign we may find ourselves allied with many people whom in the past we barely tolerated: the religious zealots of the Christian right, the essentially conservative types who have been gravitating toward the militias, the wild and undisciplined young White people in our cities who had nowhere to turn but to the skinhead movement when they were abandoned by our “multicultural” society, libertarians who finally are waking up to the fact that if they are to preserve any liberty at all they may have to compromise their individualism temporarily, perhaps even a few authoritarians from the military and police establishments who have overdosed on Clintonism.

Thus, even as the division of our people continues, new unions will be formed. By the time the shooting begins in earnest things almost certainly will not be divided along the lines we would prefer. What we must strive for now is to ensure that those on our side of the division will be able to win.