From National Vanguard
Tabloid, Issue
No. 83, 1981:
Dear Editor:
Without intending to create a false drama, I think you are
saying that at some time in the future, if I don't come around to your way of
thinking, you'll see me offed for the good of the race. To tell you the truth,
you make me a little nervous. In your June edition of
NATIONAL VANGUARD,
in the short article on Rabbi Meir Kahane (I rather admire his honesty and courage)
and his effort to make sex illegal in Israel between Gentile men and Jewish
women, you write that death would be a more appropriate punishment for that
crime than the five years in prison suggested by the rabbi. I already feel the
blade whistling down.
The confusion for me here is that I am told by almost
everyone the same things that you seem to tell me; that if I don't agree with
their way of thinking I'll be sent to my maker when I least expect it. The
Soviets, the Maoists, the Fidelistas, the Khomeinites--and when push comes to
shove, even the Republicans, Democrats, and Socialists, the Christians and
Mosiems, the Right and the Left and those in between, the military juntas and
those wonderful people's revolutionaries fighting them -- all seem to be saying
the same thing. The one idea everybody seems to understand is that if the other
guy's in your way he's intolerable, so you off him.
The article on Churchill [“Churchill: the War Criminal Who
Got Away,”
NATIONAL VANGUARD No. 82, p.11] describes with some accuracy
how I feel not only about the Great British Leader but about the other Great
Leaders of my lifetime: Stalin, Roosevelt, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Castro, Tito,
Hitler, Mussolini, Che, Truman, Johnson. What is there to choose among those
men? Each one was a failed man, a mass killer, and a disaster for the people he
pretended to serve.
The great issue of race relations might be mightily
illuminated in these United States if our citizens would simply stop following
their leaders, obeying the laws of their leaders, groveling before their
leaders. It's our leaders who insist alien races have the right to cross
private property, our leaders who build the highways from our frontiers to the
hearts of our cities and refuse to see even their own laws enforce, our leaders
who tax us under threat of imprisonment to sustain the alien races, our leaders
who issue permits and thus control all media and educational institutions, our
leaders who create the bureaucratic swarming that infests every aspect of
public and private life in the land.
I have no reason to believe that there is not something
unclean in the mere desire to see oneself as a leader with institutionalized
(governmental) power over others. There is certainly something unclean about
those who have it now and those who don't but are trying to get it. Where are
the exceptions? How can I know who they are? I think I've had my fill of
leaders. I've also had my fill of those who lust after being leaders.
B.R.S.
Los Angeles,
CA
Editor's Reply:
Actually, you
are creating a bit of false drama in
your mind. The National Alliance is not aiming at enforcing a total ideological
conformity on the population (assuming we had the means to do so) and killing
everyone who has an independent thought, as you suggest. What we are trying to
do is organize a carefully selected group of men and women of our race into an
effective force for assuring a future which is both White and progressive. In
order to assure such a future, one does not need to impose a mental lockstep on
the White population. It is quite sufficient that the basic ideas and values
which we are propagating become firmly rooted in the minds of the population,
and that racially destructive activity be ended by whatever means are
necessary.
The great bulk of the White population has always been
ideologically neutral and even value-neutral; most people simply follow the
herd without thinking about it, always yielding to the strongest force. When
drugs, race-mixing, and permissiveness are held up before them as norms, that's
the way they will drift. And when clean living, racial idealism, and
self-discipline are the normative examples, they'll drift in that direction
instead.
************************
When drugs, race-mixing, and permissiveness are held
up before
them as norms, that's the way they will drift. And
when clean living,
racial idealism, and self-discipline are the normative
examples,
they'll drift in that direction instead.
************************
I am sure this will continue to be the case for many generations
to come. One does not have to regiment the people; they regiment themselves,
instinctively. What one has to do is provide the proper guidelines, so that the
herd stays headed generally in the right direction. One must also keep out
alien and destructive influence, such as the Jews, by whatever means are
necessary.
As for the tiny fraction of the population capable of truly
independent thought and judgement, what is essential is not a guillotine for
deviationists, as you imply, but instead a healthy spiritual environment, full
access to truth -- especially historical truth, which is the accumulated
experience of the race -- and the existence of a clear set of guideposts pointing
into the future. Each new generation of thinkers should not be required to
reinvent the wheel, philosophically, although it might be a valuable corrective
safeguard if a few in each generation do exactly that.
What a guillotine is required for is to cut out of the race
truly diseased elements, so that they do not propagate. Taking a non-White as a
mate, whether with the deliberate intent of miscegenation or simply as an act
of egoistic irresponsibility, is clear evidence of disease. (I would indeed be
sorry if your nervousness in response to seconding of Rabbi Kahane's proposal for
outlawing sexual relations between Jews and Whites were based on personal
guilt.)
************************
What a guillotine is required for is to cut out of the
race truly
diseased elements, so that they do not propagate.
Taking a non-White as
a mate, whether with the deliberate intent of
miscegenation or
simply as an act of egoistic irresponsibility, is
clear evidence
of disease.
************************
Being a free spirit, of course, has always entailed a certain
danger, and I believe it is best that way, because it encourages caution and
stability. The safe thing to do is to follow the herd. Don't insist on moving
the guidelines about or setting a new example for others for frivolous reasons
or through whimsical self-indulgence.
If you must strike out on your own, think first and then
tread carefully -- and responsibly. A responsible and non-destructive free spirit
need have no fear of the National Alliance or of a government based on our
principles.
As for leaders, I must admit that I share some of your
misgivings, although I hesitate to lump all leaders together, and I try to take
a longer view of their effects on the race. You say that each of the leaders
you list is a failed man and was a disaster for the race. It is true, of
course, that all of them except Castro are dead, and that some of them came to
violent ends. Death is an inevitable failure we must all face, regardless of
our effect on the race, and I cannot agree with those who see Hitler and
Mussolini (even Che) as less successful than Stalin, Roosevelt, and Tito, just
because the former met death at the hands of their enemies, while the latter
succumbed to psychological degeneration.
It may be worthwhile to remember that Jesus was in the
former category, while the head rabbi of the sanhedrin which ordered his death
was presumably in the latter. It may also be worth while to remember that even
a couple of centuries after his death there was not much in the way of visible
accomplishment on the part of Jesus, and he might well have been judged a
failed man. After another 10 centuries had passed he seemed to have been quite
successful indeed. As we continue to move into the post-Christian era in the
next century, historians will undoubtedly revise their opinions of him again.
It seems to me that whether a leader is a success or not must
be judged in terms of his
ultimate effect on his race. At any finite
time after his death we still cannot be certain of what the ultimate effect
will be, but we should be able to make a better guess as time passes. My guess
is that of all leaders you mention Hitler will ultimately turn out to be the
most
successful, that his efforts will
do more to advance our race to higher levels than any other.
Many Germans who remember the horrors of the Eastern Front
and the democratic-communist Occupation in the postwar years might agree with
your assessment that he was a disaster for his people, but I would refer them
again to the example of Jesus: the horrors of the Christian religious wars
between Catholics and Protestants in the Middle Ages exceeded even those of the
rape of Berlin by the Red Army in 1945.
All those people had to die anyway, of course, if not in the
battle of Stalingrad or tied to a stake in Seville, then at home in bed. What
counts is the purpose served by their lives: the effect on their race they had.
Which leaders failed and which did not may still be a matter for debate. What
is certain is that there
will be leaders in the future, just as surely
as there have been leaders in the past. It is inherent in the nature of the
race. Our responsibility is not to try to dodge this fact, but rather to do
everything we can to insure that our future leaders are the
right ones,
who not only have leadership ability and drive, but who also share our values
and are guided by our principles.
I cannot help but sympathize with you even as I argue against
you. I began my own ideological life as a libertarian. Furthermore, my
libertarianism was not based on theory, but my own inner nature.
I can remember well my reaction to ROTC, for example.
Although I loved the weapons training and was quite interested in the study of
military organization and tactics, I despised the close-order drill. I rebelled
against brass polishing and boot shining. I found the regimented barracks life
at ROTC summer camp, with its enforced “togetherness” around the clock, utterly
disagreeable.
Nevertheless, I recognize regimentation as being an
indispensable element of any effective army. I am sure that part of the blame
for the decline in quality of the U.S. Army today must be laid to the
de-emphasis on regimentation and discipline in recent years.
************************
Our responsibility is...to do everything we can to
insure that our future
leaders are the right ones, who do not only
have leadership ability
and drive, but who also share our values and are
guided by
our principles.
************************
In other words, just because regimentation is disagreeable to
me does not mean that it is a bad thing. And just because you and I may instinctively
rebel against restraints of any kind does not mean that restraints are bad for
society as a whole. Society needs leadership, if it is to serve any worthwhile
purpose. And even society's leaders need guiding values and principles, if
their leadership is to be anything other than a disaster for their people.
