Andy Warhol's Jewish Nose Job

Image and caption from ATTACK! tabloid issue No. 8, 1971:

This Andy Warhol advertisement for a Jewish nose job, titled "Before and After"
was auctioned off in New York last month. An "art" collector paid $21,000 for it

* * * * *

Comment by Will White Williams:

Readers who are familiar with the big Best of ATTACK! and National Vanguard tabloid-sized book will recognize the image and its caption, above, from page one of that volume.

I remember doing Google image searches for Before and After in the past and not finding anything. I'd never seen this "anti-Semitic" image anywhere else except in the BANV until recently in another Google search.

The painting was executed by Warhol in 1962 from a slightly different version he did in 1961. Both versions exhibited together in a photograph here.

The painting is now owned by the Museum Of Modern Art (MOMA), gifted by the Hollywood Jew/queer David Geffen in 1995.

While on the subject of Jews and Modern "art," among his many other modern "art" pieces, collector Geffen also sold Jackson Pollock's lovely drip splatter "No. 5, 1948" for $140 million through a Sotheby's auction in 2006, making it the most expensive painting ever sold at that time. Geffen had purchased the piece from another Jew, publishing magnate S.I. Newhouse, Jr., and reportedly sold it to Mexican mega-billionaire David Martinez Guzman.

The genius Pollack at work

Modern Art: Jewish at its core, just as Tom Wolfe pointed out in his The Painted Word, the first book I ever purchased from Dr. William Pierce's National Vanguard Books back around 1990. Though not a Jew, Pollack, a flaming alcoholic, was married to one, Lee Krasner, and promoted heavily by other Jews like "art" critics Harold Rosenberg, Leo Steinberg, and Clement Greenberg and "art" dealer Peggy Guggenheim. Wolfe described the nearly totally Jewish modern "art" scene as "Cultureburg."

W.W.W.

Eugenics: the Upward Path

From National Vanguard Magazine Issue No. 86, May 1982:

Eugenics: the Upward Path

By Jan Keown

The impact of biological science on modern social thought is one of the most compelling dramas in all of human experience.  On the one hand, for the first time we now understand some of the underlying mechanisms of the creation and transmission of the human characteristics.  We know how heredity and environment interact to augment or degrade the quality of races and nations.  Moreover, we now have the ability to manipulate both factors in order to produce a race of superior human beings who could be the embodiment of that most ethereal of our dreams:  the Nietzschean Superman.

As fate would have it though, these advances in knowledge have come at a time when the world is in the grip of extremely destructive and irrational forces – a time when the ruling powers and the thoughtless masses alike worship the false god of universal human equality and see the devil in any dream of human betterment.

Overcoming these negative forces – or, at least, bypassing them – will be the mission of all progressive and racially conscious men and women for the foreseeable future.

In the beginning, natural forces of selection ensured that, on the average, each generation of our ancestors was stronger, tougher, and cleverer than its predecessors.  The environmental pressures of the Ice Age world sloughed off the dead wood of our race with machinelike efficiency.

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

“We drown the weakling and the monstrosity.  It is not passion, but reason,  to separate the useless from the fit.”  - Seneca

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

And we may with reasonable safety assume that the earliest Europeans possessed the healthy pragmatism regarding defective specimens of their own kind which is usual among primitive tribesmen of other races even today:  useless mouths were a burden which the noble savage was uninclined to support.  The Roman statesman Seneca stated the case for these primitive eugenicists when he wrote, in the first century of our own era, “We drown the weakling and the monstrosity.  It is not passion, but reason, to separate the useless from the fit.”

The upward evolutionary spiral continued until the end of the Ice Ages, resulting in the Cro-Magnon man who was superior physically, and perhaps intellectually (judging from his larger brain), to anything we know today.

With the dawn of the Neolithic era and the coming of the agricultural economy, natural selective pressures eased, and sentiment began to interfere with a rigid pruning of inferior human material.  Inevitably, while technology and social organization advanced, the quality of our ancestors imperceptibly began to decline.

Eventually, in place of the reflective eugenics of the tribal primitive, a new form of human quality control began to take shape in Classical Greece.  The need of the city-state for healthy warriors coalesced with the Greek ideal of physical and intellectual perfection to produce, in Sparta, the first government-administered eugenics program of which we know.

Always outnumbered, ruling a resentful helotry and continually occupied with warfare or preparation for warfare, Sparta took great care to safeguard the quality and quantity of its citizens.  There were penalties for celibacy and for late marriage, as well as for a bad marriage.  A Spartan who fathered three children was excused from the night watch, and after his fourth child he was exempt from taxation.

All newborns were subject to an examination by the Elders.  The child was taken to the Council Hall, and if it met the standards of the nation it was accepted.  If found wanting it was hurled into an abyss on the slopes of Mt. Taygetus.  “It was better for the child and the city that one not born from the beginning to comeliness and strength should not live,” was the sentiment attributed by Plutarch to Sparta’s great, semi-legendary lawgiver, Lycurgus.

Xenophon testified in the fourth century B.C. that the Spartan eugenics produced a race unparalleled in vigor:  “It is easy to see that these measures produced a race excelling in size and strength.  Not easily would one find people healthier or more physically capable than the Spartans.

With the decline of the Hellenic age, the ideals of the Greek eugenics disappeared from the world scene.  Indeed, during her later days, forgetting Seneca’s precepts, Rome so neglected the quality of her people that the great edifice of her Empire staggered and then fell before the vigor of the unspoiled Germanic tribes of the misty North.

These hardy people, so magnificent in their pagan naturalness, carried all before them.  The momentum of their onrushing energies took them to new heights of achievement which culminated in a world empire and the cultural-technical miracle which we know as Western civilization.

These accomplishments were accompanied, one regrets to say, by a new onset of the insidious process of racial degeneration – a process which had earlier been held in abeyance by the healthful and natural life-style of the uncivilized North.  This is always the price paid for a preoccupation with the externals of life, and a neglect of its essence.  But in the middle of the last century two men emerged who would offer a new opportunity to reverse the downward trend in racial quality:  Charles Darwin and Francis Galton.

FRANCIS GALTON

Galton was born in 1822 into a talented, middle-class English family.  Endowed with a soaring intellect, he was a marvelous example of the Victorian gentleman-scholar.  He made significant contributions to geography, meteorology, anthropometry, and criminology.

The turning point in Galton’s intellectual life came with the publication in 1859 of The Origin of Species by his cousin Charles Darwin.  Galton said of this event, “Its effect was to demolish a multitude of dogmatic barriers by a single stroke, and to arouse a spirit of rebellion against all ancient authorities whose positive and unauthenticated statements were contradicted by modern science.”

In particular, its effect on Galton was to initiate in him a lifelong concern with the science of racial improvement.  He coined the term “eugenics” for this science, from the Greek words meaning “well born.”  Galton devoted the remainder of this life to thinking, writing, and lecturing about the concept of the uplifting of the race through wise breeding.

Galton saw that the welfare of a nation was guaranteed not by any material resource it might possess, but by the collective hereditary qualities of its citizens.  He was convinced that by suitably modifying the social environment it was possible to gradually raise the physical, mental, and moral level of successive generations.  By the same token, he saw processes at work which, if nothing else was done to intervene, could permanently cripple the nation.  He wrote in the 1894 National Review, “It has now become necessary to better the breed of the human race.  The average citizen is too base for the everyday work of modern civilization.”

Galton also understood the nature of the principal obstacle in the path of the reforms he wanted to introduce.  As he put it, “…there exists a sentiment, for the most part quite unreasonable, against the gradual extinction of an inferior race.”

When he dies in 1911 Francis Galton left a world which he had changed profoundly.  He had forged a new way of looking at man and at life.  The reverberations of his hammer blows are still echoing around us.

While he created an imposing theoretical framework, however, Galton never really attempted to put his idea into practice.  In fact, the father of eugenics never fathered any children of his own.  To see the eugenics idea in action we must look to the small-town New England of the 1830’s.  Utopian communities were not uncommon in the 19^th-century America, but the Oneida Community was unique, as was its leader, John Humphrey Noyes.

Noyes was born in 1811 in Brattleboro, Vermont.  In 1833, during one of the religious revivals that were sweeping New England, he adopted a creed known as Perfectionism, which held that man can achieve a state of sinless perfection.  He became so adamant in his beliefs, however, that he alienated his fellow Perfectionists and was declared persona non grata by them.

JOHN HUMPHREY NOYES

Not one to be discouraged easily, in 1841 he decided to start his own group, in Putney, Vermont, beginning with himself, his wife, his brother, and his two sisters.  Within a short time the group’s membership had increased to 35 persons.

Always the dominant personality and ideological fountainhead, Noyes evolved an idea which was to prove vital to the eugenics program which lay ahead for his group.  His doctrine of “complex marriage” provided the basis for a genuine social revolution in miniature.  The theological justification is obscure, but in effect it meant that everyone in the group was married to everyone else.  In fact, exclusive love was declared sinful.

On practical grounds, marriage was seen as undesirable because it prohibited scientific selection and limited the best males to the number of children that one woman could produce.  Noyes said, “Certainly, scientific propagation is impossible so long and so far as mating is done by promiscuous scrambling, which is the very nature of marriage.  If the time has really come for scientific propagation, then the time has come for the departure of marriage and the reconstruction of society on the principles which allow science to lay its hands on the business of mating.” 

Their unorthodox social arrangements eventually aroused the ire of their more conventional neighbors, and the group moved to Oneida Creek, New York, which was then a frontier settlement.  Arriving in 1848, they began building their community.  At this time they were 87 in number.  Beginning from scratch they spent 20 years creating their utopia.

During this time Noyes prepared for the day when his projected eugenic breeding program, which he called “stirpculture” (from the Latin stirps, meaning stock or lineages), would begin.  Evening lectures were given by breeders on inbreeding, judicious crosses, and other tricks of the trade.

By 1869 the stage was set for the first attempt at scientific breeding.  In 20 years of hard work Noyes and his followers (by then numbering around 250) had built a thriving community.  They had houses, farms, factories, printing presses, and money in the bank.  They were united behind a dynamic leader and were of one mind and one accord as to how they should proceed.

The women who were to take part in the program pledged:  “We have no rights or personal feelings in regard to child-bearing which shall in the least degree oppose or embarrass Mr. Noyes in his choice of scientific combinations.”  The men likewise promised:  “We desire you may feel that we most heartily sympathize with your purpose in regard to scientific propagation, and offer ourselves to be used in forming and combinations that may seem to you desirable.  We desire to be servants of the truth.  We are your true soldiers.”

A commission headed by Noyes had the final say over who would mate with whom.  Usually a couple applied for permission to mate, but at times the commission took the initiative in selecting matches.

In the ten years between 1869 and 1879, 58 children were born as a result of the stirpicultural experiment.  Of these, nine were fathered by Noyes himself, who was then in his sixties.

The results of the experiment were encouraging.  No mothers were lost, and no deaf, dumb, blind, crippled or idiotic children were born.  Although no intelligence tests were given to the children, their longevity statistics are interesting.  By 1931 the oldest of the “stirpicults” was 52, the youngest 41.  According to actuarial statistics there should have been 45 deaths by that time, this rather high number reflecting the high infant and child mortality rate in the U.S. population in the second half of the 19^th century.  In fact, however, only six of the 58 had died.

Noyes left the Oneida Community in 1876 in the wake of a religious dispute.  It is ironic that while the founder of modern eugenics, Francis Galton, had rejected the Bible-based “creation” fable and the other Judeo-Christian myths, the only eugenic breeding community in America found is justification in the Bible and was wracked by Scriptural quibbles.  Soon after Noyes departed, complex marriage and stirpculture were abandoned.  In 1881 the community was dissolved.

Noyes, in retirement in Canada, claimed not to be discouraged by the collapse of the Oneida Community.  He said, “We made a raid into an unknown country, charted it, and returned without the loss of a man, woman, or child.”

At about the time the Oneida Community was coming to an end, America was beginning to embrace the eugenics idea with a rising tide of enthusiasm.  By the turn of the century the nation was entering an era which could almost be called the golden age of eugenics.  The progressive movement welcomed biological reform as a natural corollary to political reform.  The 26^th President of the United States, Teddy Roosevelt, said, “Some day, the inescapable duty of the good citizen of the right type, is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world.”

Leading geneticists and other scientific and civic celebrities were solidly behind the movement.  In 1906 the American Breeders Association set up a commission on eugenics, among whose members were botanist Luther Burbank, geneticist Edward G. Conklin, and David Starr Jordon, president of Stanford University and vice-president of the Boy Scouts of America.  According to Jordan, “The blood of a nation determines its history.”

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

[B]y 1928 three-fourths of the nation’s universities taught eugenics.

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

Eugenics organizations were formed all across the country.  Madison Grant, the noted author and president of the New York Zoological Society, formed the Galton Society in New York.  Another group, the Eugenics Education Society, had branches in a score of cities.  In 1913 the Eugenics Association was founded.  The Eugenics Committee of the United States, later called the American Eugenics Society, began operating in 1822.

The new science of eugenics was highly regarded in the academic world of 60 years ago.  In fact, by 1928 three-fourths of the nation’s universities taught eugenics.

Sterilization was proposed as a eugenic solution to the problem of crime.  Vasectomy, which originally was a substitute for castration, was first performed in Indiana in 1899.  The Indiana legislature passed the first state sterilization law in 1907, making sterilization mandatory for confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and other institutionalized people when deemed appropriate by an expert board.  Thirty states had sterilization laws by 1931.

In 1924 eugenics advocates played a key role in gaining passage of the Immigration Restriction Act, which was intended to preserve the predominantly Nordic racial character of the United States.  James J. Davis, President Coolidge’s secretary of labor, speaking in support of that act, said:  “We should ban from our shores all races and all individuals who are physically, mentally, morally, and spiritually undesirable and who constitute a menace to our civilization.”

Five years after its greatest triumph, the eugenics movement met with disaster.  With the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 the eugenics societies dried up and blew away.  The grim, immediate problems of economic survival took precedence over idealistic concerns for future well-being.  Finally, the coming to power of the liberal-minority coalition under Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 drove the last nails into the coffin of the eugenics movement.

Ultimately, even had it not been for the disasters of Depression and FDR, that movement would have run up against its own limitations.  All the talk, all the committees, all the college courses, despite their beneficial effects on legislation in the first quarter of the century, could not have achieved their desired ends.  The movement was at odds with the democratic-capitalist spirit of the country.  A meaningful eugenics program must be a prime national goal with the full support of a determined leadership behind it.  It must be part of a total revolution involving a whole people.

Just such a revolution was coming to fruition in Germany in the fateful year of 1933, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler.  Never before had a national government come to power fully committed to the biological ennoblement of the nation.  In the words of Wilhelm Frick, Hitler’s minister of the interior:  “The fate of race-hygiene, of the Third Reich, and of the German people will in the future be indissolubly bound together.”

Brave words were matched by action in the new Germany.  Private organizations engaged in eugenics education, such as the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Genetics, and Eugenics, were reorganized as government agencies.  On July 14, 1933, the Hereditary Health Courts were set up to supervise the sterilization of congenitally defective Germans.  In their first year of operation over 50,000 sterilizations were performed.

Pro-family and pro-child propaganda encouraged Germans to have large families.  Marriage loans at no interest were made available to young couples, one-fourth of the principal being canceled with the birth of each child.

On December 12, 1935 Heinrich Himmler, the national leader of the SS, instituted the Lebensborn (“spring of life”) program.  The Lebensborn concerned itself with families of especially good stock.  It provided support for large families and help for expectant mothers and children.  It fought against the abortion of healthy children and tried to raise the position of the unmarried mother.

HEINRICH HIMMLER

Germany was well on the way to a revolutionary new age of racial dynamism, but an aroused world Jewry had other ideas.  The rest is history.

With the destruction of Germany the eugenics idea was “discredited.”  Anyone since that time daring to express concern about problems of racial quality has found himself under attack by the New Inquisition.  A taboo on racial thought in the academic world is rigidly enforced, and the new orthodoxy of human equality reigns without challenge.

Thinking about our genetic position today is an essentially unpleasant duty.  The trends are all negative.  Live in the modern industrial states of the West is as racially unhealthy as can be imagined.

It is ironic that in the midst of this racial disaster area the science of genetics is making tremendous progress.  While the society around them lurches toward a biological debacle, the geneticists are gaining new knowledge at an exponential rate.  What is lacking is the motivation on the part of the governmental-academic establishment to use this new knowledge for the improvement of the race.

Nevertheless, the knowledge is available to those who are willing to use it.  Although some if its applications require all the machinery of modern high technology, others are relatively simple, needing little more than a willing and informed group of men and women.

One of the simplest and potentially most effective applications of the new knowledge is artificial insemination.  In the 1940’s Dr. A.S. Parkes found that sperm treated with glycerol could be frozen and stored for an indefinite period.  Concurrently, the Nobel Award-winning geneticist, H.J. Muller, proposed a national sperm bank, which every woman could draw on to have children by exceptional fathers.  This idea has been revived recently – and hysterically condemned by the controlled media.

On the distaff side, new techniques can also be used to increase the spread of desirable genes.  Hormone injections can cause a female to superior quality to super-ovulate, releasing up to 30 eggs at one time.  After surgical extraction and fertilization the eggs are implanted in average, healthy females, where they are carried to term.

Controlled inbreeding could also have a pronounced eugenic effect.  As opposed to outbreeding, which tends to hide and spread recessive defects, inbreeding can be made to have a cleansing effect on the gene pool.  By sterilizing any defective offspring, it is possible eventually to produce faultless, true-breeding thoroughbreds.

Experimenters with fruit flies have inbred brothers and sisters for 75 generations without loss of fertility or vigor.  The same has been done with rats for 25 generations.

There is also an interesting human precedent.  In ancient Egypt brother-sister marriages were much in vogue, especially among royalty.  James G. Frazier writes in The Golden Bough, “Marriage between brother and sister was the best of marriages, and it acquired an ineffable degree of sanctity when the brother and sister who contracted it were themselves born of a brother and sister, who had in their turn also sprung from a marriage of the same sort.”

During the long XVIIIth Dynasty (1570-1320 B.C.), generally regarded as one of the greatest periods of ancient Egypt, this practice was carried on for centuries.  All indications are that the results were excellent.  The mummified bodies which the Egyptians thoughtfully provided for our examination are uniformly clean-featured and well-formed.

It must be realized that effective eugenic practices would involve a substantial amount of social and psychological reorientation in the group employing them.  A really aggressive eugenics program would require extensive modification of the ordinary societal myths, norms, and biases.  The benefits to posterity, however, would be incalculable:  the biological equivalent of the old alchemist’s dream of transmuting lead into gold.

It seems obvious that the chances of eugenics principles being applied on a national scale anywhere in the West during the present era are nil.  This society is rotting from within, undermined by contradictions which prevent it from facing reality and confronting the most basic of problems.  With the old order paralyzed by its own outdated values, it will be up to the standard bearers of a new order to guide our people through the coming crisis and ultimately lead them to the greatness which is their destiny.

The upward struggle of life is far from ended.  Our present stage of evolution is but a way station on the path to unimaginable future glories.  Friedrich Nietzsche put it this way in his Thus Spoke Zarathustra: “The Superman is the meaning of the earth.  Let your will say, ‘The Superman shall be the meaning of the earth.’”

The Gap Between PC Orthodoxy and Reality

Commentary in National Alliance monthly Members BULLETIN by Dr. Pierce, from January 1998:

The Old Faith Faileth

During the past couple of years we’ve had a growing volume of correspondence from the general public:  from people who have never had any connection with a race-oriented or Politically Incorrect organization.  Most of these people are responding to one of our American Dissident Voices broadcast or to one of our Internet sites.  Their letters, some via e-mail and some via the postal service, cover a wide spectrum of attitudes, from people who have long agreed with us but only recently have been moved to contact us, to people who until recently disagreed strongly with us but are now beginning to have doubts about their former beliefs.

A typical letter in the latter category might begin:  “I don’t share your racist beliefs, but I must admit that you’re right about….”  Then will follow an account of a traumatic collision with racial reality the correspondent recently has experienced.  Or a letter might begin: “I don’t agree with your ideas about a Jewish conspiracy, but I’m glad to see that somebody is speaking out against the Clinton administration’s insane plan to start another unnecessary war in the Middle East….”  What one senses behind all the letters of this type is a person who used to be Politically Correct but has been unable to maintain his orthodox faith in the face of an increasingly contradictory reality.  Major cracks have developed in his system of beliefs as the world in which he lives becomes nuttier and nuttier – and increasingly hostile.  He still wants to have “respectable” or “Correct” beliefs, but they are slipping away from him as the evidence against them mounts.  Some of these letters don’t even admit to any agreement with us, but one can sense a barely controlled desperation in their statement of belief, as if they’re begging us to prove them wrong and give them something more reasonable to believe instead.

Letters of the former type, expressing strong, long-term agreement with us, appear to be not so much from people who have just learned of our existence as from people who finally have been able to overcome their fears and are willing to risk exposure by contacting us.  Most of these people are professionals who are certain that their lives will be ruined if any of their colleagues find out what they believe.  The softness of their lives and the non-stop barrage of hate propaganda from the controlled media have robbed them of their courage and greatly exaggerated their fears – but a subconsciously sensed change in the climate around them nevertheless has moved them to act.

What is this climatic change?  Basically it is a tension in the air caused by the growing gap between reality and orthodoxy.  At the same time, the orthodox establishment has lost much of its former status and respectability.  The façade of orthodoxy has become more weatherbeaten, while the parade grounds on which the moguls of orthodoxy used to display their might have grown more weeds and developed more potholes.  Awe is being overtaken by cynicism.  The faithful have become increasingly doubtful, and the unfaithful have become bolder.

This process is helped enormously by people like Bill Clinton.  He is the high priest of orthodoxy, a man who has made a career of professing his dedication to Political Correctness while doing more than any other person to discredit it, albeit inadvertently.  As I write, his approval rating, announced by his media friends during the second week of the Bill-and-Monica scandal, stands at 72 per cent, an all-time high.  What a wonderful argument against mass democracy that is!

I am willing to believe this amazing approval rating:  the people who voted for him – the welfare class, the Jews, the feminists, and homosexuals, and the non-Whites – are rallying around their besieged hero, while other voters are expressing their approval of the act that the U.S. economy is still holding itself up, for the moment, and that’s all they really care about.  But the people who approve of Bill Clinton don’t really count, not even the self-supporting, heterosexual White ones.

Furthermore, it’s not really “approval” which counts; it’s respect, awe, and fear, and these latter are way down.  When people no longer respect or fear their government, that government’s days are numbered.  For most Americans Bill Clinton symbolizes the government; as their contempt for him grows, their respect for the government he heads diminishes.  And although fear of disapproval by one’s colleagues is not quite the same as fear of being found out by the government to be Politically Incorrect, the two are related:  the more one loses one’s respect for the government – which, after all, is the ultimate arbiter of Political Correctness – the more one is willing to take a chance on being found out by one’s colleagues.

There’s more to the change in climate than Bill Clinton’s unzipped fly, of course.  There’s the O.J. Simpson verdict, and there are the cumulative effects of a thousand lesser aberrations over the past few years.  There’s the increasingly hard line of the television bosses promoting miscegenation, and there’s the increasing difficulty of remaining unscathed by the proximity of non-Whites in our everyday lives.  More and more people are coming to the realization that the country is poised on the brink, while the priests of Political Correctness are chanting: “Jump! Jump! Jump!...”

Anyway, that’s what I see as the reason for the growing number of people reaching out to us. May their numbers continue to increase!

Where Are Our Heroes?

From ATTACK! tabloid, Issue No. 55, 1977:


The Men of the Alamo
by Dr. William L. Pierce

AS THE DUSK GATHERED in the early evening of March 5, 1836, William Travis mustered the 183 men under his command on the dusty plaza of the Alamo, a fortress-like former Spanish mission. As the assembled Texans listened intently, the lanky officer outlined the situation. He made explicit what everyone already knew: there was little hope of surviving the onslaught of the 4,000-strong Mexican army which surrounded the fortress. They could hope for no further relief.

Then he did something strange. As the men watched curiously, Travis drew his sword and traced a line in the dust along the front of the first rank. Now he offered the men a choice. If there was anyone among them who had been deceived as to the gravity of their circumstances – if there was anyone who wanted to make a break for it – they might leave without infringing their honor. But let those who would stand and die with Travis cross the line.

Micajah Autry, an itinerant scholar and poet from Tennessee, was first across the line. Davey Crockett, the legendary rifleman, quickly followed, and then James Bonham, the dashing horseman from South Carolina. As his wife Susannah watched from the shadows of the old mission’s wall, Almeron Dickinson, a blacksmith from Gonzalez turned artilleryman, crossed the line. The rest followed in a rush, whooping defiance of Mexican General Santa Anna and his horde.

Davy Crockett's Last Stand at the Alamo -
This detail of that painting was the cover
 for National Vanguard magazine #103,
 Jan-Feb, 1985    

Only two men remained behind the line. One of them, Jim Bowie, the storied knife-fighter, lay on a cot, desperately ill. He begged to be carried across, and two of his comrades quickly hefted him over the line.

Now only Moses (Louis) Rose, a Jewish mercenary from France, hung back. Bowie, who had earlier befriended Rose, called out weakly, “You seem not to be willing to die with us, Rose!”

Rose answered curtly, “No, I am not prepared to die, and I shall not do so if I can avoid it.” With that, he vaulted over the wall, stealthily made his way past the Mexican pickets, and vanished into the night. Some years later, he died uneventfully.

The next day the men of the Alamo won immortality.

Travis’s drawing of the line was only the most dramatic episode in the Alamo saga. At one time the details of the siege and fall of the Texas stronghold were well known to every White American. Even today the facade of the Alamo chapel (all that remains of the old mission) is a familiar picture. Movies and television shows, dating from an era in which the masters of Hollywood found a feigned patriotism expedient as well as profitable, have acquainted many with the externals of the story. The most significant aspects of the Texans’ gallant last stand, however, have been for a long time carefully veiled. They deserve to become once again the common possession of our people, and the bravery of the men of the Alamo deserves commemoration as long as our race endures.

The Texas Revolution, of which the battle of the Alamo was the most stirring event, was the inevitable result of the confrontation of two vastly different peoples. The immigrants from the United States whom Mexico had reluctantly allowed to settle Texas, which was then a part of Mexico, were overwhelmingly of northern European stock. The Texas historian T. R. Fehrenbach has described them as a “tall, very Caucasoid race, more raw-boned than wiry. They filled the ridges and valleys with fair-skinned people and blue-eyed children.”

Most of them had come from the southern and border states. There the settlers’ race-feeling, already strong, had been honed to a sharp edge in the murderous and incessant Indian wars and by their association with Black slaves, either as owners or as competitors in the labor market. These White men and women of Texas felt themselves to be the vanguard of their race, and they meant to wring their destiny, manifest or otherwise, from the plains and mountains which stretched across the remainder of the continent.

The Mexicans, who were mostly of Indian or mixed (mestizo) blood, regarded these “Anglo-Saxon barbarians” with increasing fear and resentment. The government had only allowed Texas to be settled from the United States after it had become clear that the native Mexicans from the south could not be induced to move to the sparsely settled northern province. As American farmers and ranchers poured into Texas after 1822, they quickly came to outnumber the small Mexican population. By 1830 the Mexican government had forbidden any further immigration from the growing giant to the north.

When Santa Anna converted his presidency into a dictatorship and abolished the constitution, which had provided for a federated rather than a centralized Mexican state, the Texans rose up. They quickly overwhelmed the smaller Mexican garrisons throughout the state and then seized the capital, San Antonio de Bexar, by storm, overpowering a large force commanded by Santa Anna’s brother-in-law, General Cos, in December 1835.

Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna was Mexico’s leading general as well as her most adroit politician. He had emerged as a national hero after repelling a Spanish attempt to reconquer Mexico at Vera Cruz in 1829. Monumentally vain and extravagant, the self-styled “Napoleon of the West” was nevertheless a dynamic organizer as well as a charismatic leader. He quickly assembled and drilled an army of 6,000 Mexican regulars, trained and led in accordance with the latest continental European principles. With this elite force he marched north from Saltillo, Mexico, at the end of January 1836, determined to crush the upstart American rebels and then settle the problem once and for all by a program of summary executions and mass deportations.

The reports which Santa Anna’s numerous sympathizers among San Antonio’s Mexican population brought him concerning the state of the city’s White garrison must have heightened the contempt the Mexican general felt for the abilities of the American fighting men. The force which had seized San Antonio the previous December had dwindled to fewer than a hundred men in January. Only a few dozen reinforcements augmented the detachment as the Mexicans made their way north. There was bad blood between the two top ranking Texans, with both Jim Bowie and William Barret Travis attempting to exercise command.

The Texans holding San Antonio had their strengths as well as their weaknesses, as Santa Anna and his men were to discover. The fighting spirit of those who remained was high. Most of them were volunteers from outside Texas whose elan, if anything, surpassed that of their Texas brethren.

At the defense, the American frontiersmen were among the most effective soldiers in the world. They fired their long Kentucky rifles with deadly accuracy at ranges up to 200 yards. At close quarters they were devastating with knife and tomahawk. A tendency toward indiscipline was counterbalanced by a self-reliance and a self-sufficiency not to be found among the Mexicans.

Nevertheless, Santa Anna nearly caught the Texans napping as he advanced to San Antonio on February 23. Travis, the nominal commander by virtue of his status as the senior regular officer, hadn’t thought the Mexicans capable of crossing the several hundred miles of arid plains between Saltillo and San Antonio so rapidly. Santa Anna, however, had driven his troops mercilessly, and as his advance guard swept into the city the Texans barely had time to retire to the shelter of the Alamo.

The Alamo had been built as a mission to the Indians by the Franciscan order in 1718, but it had been abandoned in 1793. Although it derived its name from a company of soldiers from the Mexican town of Alamo de Parras who had subsequently been stationed there, it was not well suited for defense, especially by so small a force as Travis commanded.

The compound consisted of a large, rectangular plaza, adjoined on the east by a smaller plaza and the old mission chapel. The larger plaza was enclosed by a thick wall twelve feet high. Inside and adjacent to the wall were the former mission workshops and living quarters, which served the garrison as barracks, storerooms, and offices. The chapel, at the southeast corner of the mission, was filled with rubble; its roof had fallen in years before.

Green Jameson, a lawyer from Kentucky who was the Texans’ chief engineer, had worked hard to strengthen the Alamo’s weak spots. A breach in the north wall had been plugged by stones and timber. On the southeast, where there was a dangerous gap between the wall and the chapel, a palisade of logs surrounded a hastily constructed earthwork.

Now the Texans intensified their efforts. A well was dug to supplement the water from a stream flowing close outside the walls. Gun emplacements were readied in the ruins of the chapel. Davey Crockett and his handful of fellow Tennesseans, who had arrived in San Antonio only two weeks before, were assigned the critical palisade on the southeast.

As the men hauled the Alamo’s fourteen guns into position on the walls, they caught sight of Santa Anna’s flag fluttering from the bell tower of the San Fernando Cathedral on the outskirts of the city, a few hundred yards away. It was blood red, and it signified no quarter.

A short while later, the lookouts spotted another flag. This one was white. Evidently Santa Anna wanted to talk. Travis, who knew of Santa Anna’s proclaimed intent to “exterminate every White man within its (Texas’s) limits,” ordered his gunners to reply with a blast of cannon fire.

That night Jim Bowie collapsed. Bowie, whose reputation as an intrepid Indian fighter and the master of the knife which bore his name was known across the frontier, had been regarded by the volunteers from outside Texas as the garrison’s rightful commander. He had not discouraged this opinion, for he had been a leader all his life and he regarded the younger Travis as inexperienced. The friction between the two, and Bowie’s greater popularity among the men, had almost led Travis to resign.

Now, with Bowie desperately ill, command rested solely in Travis’s hands. At 28, he had already established himself as a champion of White Texans’ rights. Many of his more complacent fellow Texans had regarded him as an irresponsible firebrand until events upheld his audacity. In 1832 he had been imprisoned in the coastal town of Anahuac for challenging the authority of Colonel John Bradburn, and autocratic American in the Mexican service who was widely regarded as a race traitor by White Texans. Then in 1835 Travis returned to Anahuac with a group of comrades and seized the town, helping to spark the current secession. At the Alamo he would capitalize on his opportunity for greatness.

During the night of February 23 the Mexicans closed the ring around the Alamo, carefully staying nout of range of the defenders’ rifles after the Texas marksmen had claimed several of the less cautious. On the next day, in a dispatch which still stands as a classic expression of American heroism, Travis appealed to “the people of Texas and all Americans in the world” for aid. Recognizing the possibility of insufficient reinforcement, he ended his message, which was smuggled through the Mexican lines that night by a volunteer: “I shall never surrender or retreat. Then I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch . . . If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country – Victory or Death.”

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

I shall never surrender or retreat...Victory or Death! - Col. William Travis

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

The first week of the siege was comparatively uneventful. The Mexicans lobbed cannon balls into the Alamo periodically without inflicting any casualties. The Texans, low on powder and shot, husbanded their ammunition. There was no reply to Travis’s appeal for help.

Then in the early morning darkness of March 1, 32 horsemen burst through the Mexican lines and galloped through the hastily opened gates of the Alamo. The Mexican sentries, caught off guard, didn’t fire a shot. The riders were Texans from Gonzalez, 70 miles east of San Antonio, led by George Kimball, a hatter. Almost all of them had families and were fully aware of the overwhelming odds facing the Alamo, but they rallied all the more enthusiastically to the relief of their countrymen. They were the only reinforcements, save one, the Alamo would receive.

One more American braved the Mexican lines to reach the Alamo. He was James Butler Bonham, a chivalrous young lawyer from a wealthy family in South Carolina and a distant cousin of Travis.

Bonham had been dispatched by Travis on February 27 to persuade the sizeable force at Goliad to march to the aid of the Alamo. The commander at Goliad was Colonel James Fannin, an indecisive and unstable officer. When it became clear to Bonham that Fannin intended to stay in Goliad, he prepared to return to the Alamo.

When Fannin implored him not to throw his life away, Bonham spat in the dust and snarled that Travis deserved to know the answer to his appeals. After stopping at Gonzalez and learning of the departure of the local men, he rode westward to glory, passing through the Mexican lines unscathed on March 3.

The drama was drawing to its conclusion. As Travis drew the line March 5, Santa Anna, buoyed by reinforcements from the south, was planning his assault on the Texans’ fortress. Shortly before daybreak the next morning, March 6, 1836, the Texans awakened to the alarms of their sentries and the rhythmic tramp of thousands of marching feet. Four columns were heading for the Alamo: two groups marching toward the north wall of the plaza, a third striking from the east, the fourth detachment moving from the south against Davey Crockett’s palisade. Over the cheers of the attacking Mexicans, the Texans could heard the regimental band blaring out the menacing strains of the “Deguello,” a march from Spain’s Moorish past, the name derived from a word for throat-cutting.

Even in the dim light of the pre-dawn the Texans could make out the gaudy braid and silver the Mexican officers sported on their uniforms. Once again the Kentucky rifle proved its mettle, as the defenders poured a devastating fire into the ranks of the advancing Mexicans. Officers and men fell by the scores, then the hundreds. Twice the Mexicans reeled back, until, reinforced by Santa Anna’s reserve, and at a terrible cost, the two northern columns reached the base of the Alamo wall. Now, deprived of the advantage the much greater range of their rifles had given them and hampered by the absence of ramparts on the thick walls, the Texans began to fall. The Mexicans scrambled up their scaling ladders, not without heavy losses, and poured over the wall.

Travis fell at the north wall, shot through the head. As the Mexicans surged into the plaza, the Texans engaged them hand-to-hand. Towering over the diminutive mestizos, they wielded tomahawks, knives, and fists to murderous effect. A gun crew on the west wall swung their piece around and riddled the Mexicans in the plaza with grapeshot before they, too, were overwhelmed.

As more and more Mexicans swarmed over the walls, the outnumbered Texans fell back into the barracks and storerooms. Only at the expense of numerous casualties were the Mexicans able to kill or dislodge the defenders.

When the Mexicans burst into one small room, they found a defiant Jim Bowie, too weak to rise from his cot, but brandishing a revolver. He shot several of his assailants before he succumbed.

Behind the palisade and in the chapel, Crockett’s and Bonham’s men still held out. The Mexicans overran them after a brief but bitter struggle. Crockett and his Tennessee volunteers lay surrounded by heaps of dead Mexicans.

Major Robert Evans was shot down, torch in hand, as he crawled to blow up the Alamo’s powder magazine. Bonham and Dickinson fell by their guns in the chapel.

For fifteen minutes after the last Texan had been killed the Mexican troops, stunned by the ferocity of the resistance, continued to bayonet and shoot the dead defenders.

Santa Anna hastened to restore order. He allowed Almeron Dickinson’s wife and infant daughter, the only White women of the Alamo, to ride west to Gonzalez, presumably to spread terror with their story. The Mexican tyrant also ceremoniously liberated Travis’s Black slave, Joe, who had been found cowering in a storeroom.

The more than 1,500 Mexican casualties were attended to. The dead were buried under the supervision of San Antonio’s Mexican mayor, Francisco Ruiz, while the wounded were ministered to by the city’s Mexican population. But the Texan dead Santa Anna sought to dishonor by denying them burial. He ordered the bodies of every one of the Alamo’s 183 defenders burned.

And so the great funeral pyre was enveloped in flames, and the fire consumed the men of the Alamo – just as countless times a thousand years before, it had consumed the fallen heroes of whom their ancestors had sung in the longhouses and the great halls of northern Europe. Like all the champions of their race, the Texans treasured honor and courage above life itself. The echoes of their heroism reverberated at San Jacinto six weeks later, when Sam Houston’s men avenged them on Santa Anna, and for a century afterward their memory gave Americans the strength to face hopeless odds resolutely.

Now, as the alien subverters stealthily work their will behind the scenes, few White Americans hearken to the lessons of the Alamo. Throughout the whole American Southwest, the mestizo descendants of Santa Anna’s horde bid to win back what he lost, as the brown flood streams unchecked across our borders.

It is time to renew the pact between the living and the dead: that they shall live on in the memory of their race, and that we, remembering, shall have their example always before us, exhorting us to carry out unflinchingly whatever the future of our race requires.

---

See also:http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6421121071497824942#editor/target=post;postID=4830167430843938899

National Vanguard Magazine is Born

Editorial from National Vanguard Magazine, Issue No. 86, May 1982:

A More Effective Tool

When we began publishing more than 11 years ago, mobs of as many as a quarter-million demonstrators were marching through the streets of Washington chanting, “Ho-Ho-Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong’s gonna win!” The Washington Post, the New York Times, and the three television networks were openly sympathetic to the communist enemy in Vietnam. ROTC facilities had been burned to the ground on a dozen of the nation’s university campuses, and terrorist bombs were going off at a rate of more than one a day in banks, corporate offices, and government buildings.

During one of the larger pro-Viet Cong demonstrations, in which the leaders had promised to “shut down the government,” a mob gathered across the street from our Washington office, and while a greasy, Levantine creature with a megaphone tried to incite his Gentile subordinates into attacking the building, roving groups were overturning parked cars along the street.

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

A greasy, Levantine creature with a megaphone tried to incite his Gentile subordinates into attacking [our Washington office] building...

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

It may be understandable that, under such circumstances, we thought that the country was ripe for revolution -- that the time had finally come when the long-suffering White majority might be encouraged to rise up; to storm the lairs of the media masters with fire and iron; to drag the politicians out of their offices and the New York-accented lawyers out of the “Justice” Department and administer summary justice to all of them on the sidewalk; to surround New York City with an impenetrable ring of a million armed vigilantes and burn the whole place to the ground. All that had to be done, we imagined, was to identify the enemy, to explain what was happening and where the country was headed, to point out the danger of inaction -- and then the people would take care of the rest.

So that’s what we did. We put our message on newsprint, under flaming, red headlines. We called it ATTACK! We hawked it on street corners, we talked about it in deliberately provocative TV and newspaper interviews, and we mailed out literally millions of copies of it.

And, of course, we were very naïve. It took us a while to realize that we were not getting through with our message to “the people,” but only to a very tiny minority among them. It took us even longer to understand why: to understand just how far the process of degeneration had already gone, and how much preparatory work would have to be done before there could be a revolution -- more precisely, before there could be a renewal, a rebirth of our people.

Nevertheless, the number of people responding to our message grew, albeit with maddening slowness at times. And we evolved. We dispensed with the red headlines. We changed our name from ATTACK! to NATIONAL VANGUARD. We began concerning ourselves less with the symptoms of what was happening to our world and our people, and more with the fundamental causes. And we found that more and more of the right sort of people were responding: people who still had healthy instincts and who were able to understand everything we were saying.

Now we have made another change. It’s a change in style rather than substance, but we believe that it will be an important change in the long run. We believe that the new image of NATIONAL VANGUARD more accurately corresponds to its essence than did the old image, and that it will help us find even more of the right sort of people.

We will, of course, continue to adhere absolutely to our guiding principle, which is that NATIONAL VANGUARD will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; that it will deal in depth with every issue relevant to our task; and that it will never allow a fear of offending any segment of the public to keep it from saying whatever needs to be said. But from now on we will be more conscious of the fact that, just as a man is often judged by the clothes he wears, the acceptability of truth may depend on the package in which it is presented.

One caution: the somewhat slicker format of the new NATIONAL VANGUARD should mislead no reader into assuming that we feel a more relaxed outlook toward the problems confronting us as a people is now appropriate. Perhaps an advantage of the tabloid format in this regard was its very roughness and the sense of currency and urgency that went along with it. The urgency may not be expressed in headlines quite as large as before, but it is even more strongly felt by the staff here, and that will be seen both in the substance of our writing and in the greater frequency with which the new NATIONAL VANGUARD will be published.

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

NATIONAL VANGUARD will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; it will deal in depth with every issue relevant to our task; and it will never allow a fear of offending any segment of the public to keep it from saying whatever needs to be said.

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

The most important reason for the changes in NATIONAL VANGUARD is that we want it to be a more effective tool for reaching and moving people of the right sort, who understand that knowledge always carries with it a responsibility for action.

We have been able to build our circulation to its present level only because our readers have participated actively in the task, telling friends, neighbors, and colleagues about NATIONAL VANGUARD. That has required courage, because the promotion of heresy has always been a hazardous enterprise. And it has required persistence, because many people do not want to hear truths which impose troubling, new responsibilities on them.

Putting our truths into a more presentable package does not eliminate the need for courage and persistence, but it should yield a greater reward for those virtues, a greater willingness to consider the truths on their own merits.

Hopefully, it will also move some to do more than consider and accept. By providing a somewhat more inviting medium, the new NATIONAL VANGUARD should induce more of those who are able to participate in the formulation of the ideas in it to do so.

Finally, the effectiveness of any tool depends upon the user. We hope that we have provided all our readers with a tool they will be more willing to use. But it is a tool in your hands now. Please use it.

W.L.P.

The National Alliance in Europe

Commentary by Dr. Pierce from October 1998:

Report from Greece

On October 24 and 25 I attended an international conference of nationalists in Thessaloniki, Greece.  Also attending the conference were representatives of groups in Greece, Portugal, Romania, Flanders, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, South Africa, and Austria.  It was hoped that representatives of Russian groups also would be present, but none was able to attend.  The Alliance was the only group in the United States represented.  The conference was hosted by the Greek nationalist group Golden Dawn.

In a formal session on October 24 I spoke to approximately 200 representatives of other groups about the work of the Alliance and listened to many reports about the work of other organizations.  On the following day I had informal conversations with a number of individuals.  On October 26, I visited German and French nationalists in Augsburg, Germany, who had been unable to attend the conference.

Altogether this conference and the attendant traveling kept me away from the National Office for six days, but I believe that it was time well spent.  Cooperation across national borders will become increasingly important for progress – and perhaps even for survival – in the future.  But to be able to have meaningful cooperation in the future, we need to establish bonds of trust and understanding now.  At least some headway was made in that direction at the Thessaloniki meeting, as I established several new contacts and further developed contacts I had made earlier this year at the NPD meeting in Passau, Germany.

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

Cooperation across national borders will become increasingly important for progress – and perhaps even for survival – in the future.

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

Each time I visit a group in another country I learn new things and gain new insights into our struggle.  In Greece, for example, there is a much stronger sense of ethnic consciousness in the general public than exists in the United States.  This is especially true in northern Greece, in what used to be Macedonia, where Thessaloniki is located.  Nationalism in this area reaches a Balkan intensity, and memory of the struggle for freedom from Turkish rule is still very strong.

A group of about 50 of us took a guided tour of a historical museum, the Museum of the Macedonian Struggle, and were lectured by both a museum guide and our host about the historical exhibits.  Both were able to speak without inhibition about Macedonia’s liberation struggle and about the strong dislike Greeks have for Turks, with none of the disgusting Political Correctness which any museum guide in the United States would be bound by.

     

Despite the stronger sense of ethnic consciousness, Greece is more genetically mixed than the countries of northern Europe.  The people I saw in Thessalonki ranged from tall, light-eyed blondes to people who were so dark I wasn’t sure whether they were Greeks or Gypsies – until I saw some real Gypsies and could note the distinct differences.  Five hundred years of Turkish rule has taken a racial toll.

Much of the ethnic consciousness in Greece is based on culture: language, traditions, etc.  Nevertheless, Golden Dawn is an organization with a clear, genetically based racial policy.

Speaking of genes, I saw a substantially higher percentage of very attractive women in Thessaloniki than I have seen in any part of the United States.  While obesity seems almost to be the rule rather than the exception for women in the United States, I didn’t see a single obese woman in Thessaloniki.  Most had long, slender, shapely legs, which they were proud to display: quite a contrast with the disgusting scenes one sees in every supermarket in America.  I could almost believe that the ancient Greek practice of having young women as well as young men compete naked in athletic contests and thus develop a pride in possessing healthy and well-formed bodies is still effective today.  I saw not a single Black or Asian in the city, although I was told that a few were there.

And speaking of language, that turned out to be much less a barrier than I had feared.  Although simultaneous translation into Greek was provided when I delivered my talk to the conference, I found that I had little or no trouble in speaking with the other representatives.  Most of the Greeks could speak English moderately well – although I had a little trouble with vendors and hotel clerks.  I have hated to see the intrusion of American trash-culture into Europe, but the ease of communicating in English nearly everywhere certainly will make the development of international contacts easier.

Greece, despite its very rich and deep cultural roots, is in some ways a backward country:  certainly where the utilization of modern technology is concerned.  Whereas in America we take word processors, scanners, and laser printers for granted, they are by no means as common in Greece.  Likewise, Internet access is far less common in Greece, even among urban professionals.

In other ways, however, Greece is far ahead of most other countries in Europe:  in the lack of Jewish influence and the consequent greater degree of freedom the people have, for example.  Whereas in Germany citizens are imprisoned for even the slightest transgression against Political Correctness, in Greece people are still free to say nearly anything they want.  This makes Greece a convenient venue for international conferences of the sort I attended in Thessalonika.  The Jews and their collaborators are working to change this, of course, just as they are in the United States.

One thing I discovered which the Jews have done for the Alliance in places like Greece is gives us name recognition.  Every nationalist in Europe has heard about The Turner Diaries, for example.  And being promoted by B’nai B’rith as the most dangerous organization in America also has helped.

W.L.P.

Anatomy of the Internal Hater

From the National Alliance Members Bulletin,  February 1999:

What Makes a Hater?

A huge volume of e-mail flows into the National Office from people all over the world who are responding to our message, primarily our weekly radio broadcasts.  Evelyn Hill weeds out the illiterate, incoherent, and irrelevant mail and gives me a selection of 20 or so letters to read each day.  Between a fourth and a third of these are hate letters, and I always read them carefully.  For one thing they are a barometer of how worried about us the enemies of our people are:  from the volume and vehemence of the hate mail following each broadcast I can estimate how badly I have rattled our enemies’ cages.  Of course, rattling the cages is not my aim, but it is interesting to note what upsets the inmates and what doesn’t.  Even more interesting are the clues the hate letters provide to the psychology of the haters – and I am interested here only in the psychology of the White haters:  the psychology our internal enemies, not the psychology of the Jews or Blacks or other external enemies.

What I really would like is for a very bright member to write a doctoral thesis in psychology on this subject and develop detailed psychological profiles of the haters.  Until such a member comes forward, I must make my own amateur analyses.  One thing I already am inclined to believe is that there is no single profile which fits all the haters, although I believe that the majority of them do fit a certain pattern.  I already have mentioned in earlier issues of the BULLETIN that the two characteristics which show up most often in hate letters are Christianity and authoritarianism.  Most of the Christian haters seem to be under the impression that the Alliance is a Christian organization which is not acting in accord with their idea of Christianity, and so they try to explain to us what it is we’re doing which is un-Christian and then tell us that we’ll roast in hell if we don’t change our ways.

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

Christian haters and the authoritarian haters have similar thought patterns but simply express themselves differently 

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

Actually, there’s quite a bit of variety among the Christian hate letters.  One which arrived this month might be put into the sub-category of Jew-worship:  “I am convinced that Jews are indeed superior to Christians and we should honor them for their great contributions to civilization.  After all, don’t we Christians pray to the greatest Jew that ever lived?  Get real, guys.  Without Jews we’d all be a bunch of trailertrash (well, you already are trailer trash).”

On the other hand, the underlying message of the authoritarian haters seems to be, “You’re out of step with everyone else, damn you!  Why can’t you be like everyone else and stop rocking the boat?”  Possibly a more sophisticated observer than I would conclude that the Christian haters and the authoritarian haters have similar thought patterns but simply express themselves differently – which would suggest that a fundamental trait of most White haters is authoritarianism; some authoritarian haters are Christians, and some are not.

One of the more interesting hate letters which arrived this month came from a man using the pseudonym “Thomas Aquinas,”, which would suggest a Christian hater, but his letter is not explicitly Christian – although he does describe himself as a “God-fearing, White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant.”  It’s an exceptionally long letter, and so I’ll quote only a few passages from it here. What he tells us is that there always have been despicable oddballs like us in every society who complained about the way society was changing.  He even cites examples from ancient Assyria and ancient Greece.  And he’s undoubtedly correct that there always have been people who were unhappy with the way their societies were changing.

What’s interesting about his letter is his expression of hatred for such people.  After laying out his theory of history and trying to prove that we’re standing in the way of change, he writes: “I’ve plainly tried to lay it out for you here today.  And I really hope I cause you some pain with that, because I really hate y’all, more than I hate much else in this life.  Because it is people like you who give real decent, real hard-working, real open-minded people a more difficult time in their lives… having to explain… why we should ever tolerate you types…”  That’s mixed in with a lot of insulting language to the effect that we’re lazy, degenerate, drooling, closed-minded, pathetic morons (he uses all of those words), “spreading your poisonous thoughts that appeal to the weaker minds in our country.”

The writer goes on to say, “We have you outnumbered… history is on our side.”  He’s not really explicit about what his side is for or who’s on it, but many of the things he says suggest that what makes his side the winning side is that it’s the side of the majority, the side of the people who’re happy with the way things are going, the side that Bill Clinton and the producers and scriptwriters at MTV are on.  If one can extract an underlying philosophy from his letter, it seems to be this:  “Whatever way things are moving is the right way, because God wanted things to go that way, and any opposition to that way is evil.”

In reading his letter one gets the feeling that before deciding which side to cheer for he holds up a moistened forefinger up to the breeze of public opinion to find out what the current trend is, then cheers for the side moving in that direction – but with real conviction that he’s on the right side and with real hatred for those on the other side.  In this letter there’s not the explicit appeal to authority that one sees in many letters from authoritarians, but I have classified it as authoritarian anyway.

The reason I’m interested in the psychology of these people who write us hate letters is that I believe that they’re only the tip of the iceberg.  For every hater who writes to us there are thousands who don’t.  And I suspect that most of them are governed by the same psychological laws.  If we can understand those laws we can understand what makes much of the opposition tick.  Understanding how the opposition thinks doesn’t mean that we can win them over to our side, of course.  We may not even want to try very hard to avoid offending them.  But we have no hope of influencing them until we do understand them.  If authoritarianism is indeed the underlying trait of most of the “normal” White people who oppose us, we need to understand in detail exactly what authoritarianism is, its etiology, what other traits it is correlated with, and so on.  I suspect that the media Jews who design television propaganda already know these things.

It would be useful even to have a better understanding of the psychology of hate.  I always have assumed that hate is a natural defense mechanism:  people hate the things or people they feel threatened by.  If that is so, exactly why do some of our fellow White people feel threatened by us?  Specifically, what is it in the authoritarian individual’s personality that makes him feel threatened by us?

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

 [W]hat is it in the authoritarian individual’s personality that makes him feel threatened by us?

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

As I mentioned above, despite the authoritarian flavor of most hate letters, I am sure that not every hater is a compulsive authoritarian.  I am sure that there are some more or less “normal” White people who hate us for entirely rational reasons.  For example, there are White businessmen who are profiting from the flood of Third World immigrants pouring into America, and they resent anyone who opposes the flood and threatens their profits.  Such rational haters aren’t likely to send us hate letters, but they still can be moved if we understand which psychological buttons on them to push.

I appeal here to those of our members with more understanding of psychology than I have to share their insights with me.  I am sure that smart people somewhere have addressed themselves seriously to these questions and have written books or research papers dealing with them, because understanding how different types of people think is the key to influencing them:  to designing effective advertising, for example, and there’s enough money to be had from that to pay for much research.  Careful experiments must have been done to establish an empirical basis for a descriptive psychology, at least; there must be a number of detailed psychological profiles out there which it would behoove us to study.  If you know about such things, please share your knowledge with me.