Thursday, December 29, 2011

Dr. Pierce's admiration for Wulf Sörensen's Heathen World View

Dr. William L. Pierce: "A more concise study of the difference between the Christian world view and ours is given in Wulf Sörensen’s The Voice of Our Ancestors, which was reprinted in National Vanguard No.107."

There they hang on the wall, one hundred ninety-six little plaques in oval, gilded frames. And there are still far fewer than there ought to have been. All the frames in the upper rows show only a name with a couple of dates on white paper. But in the lower rows they become alive. The portraits begin about the time of the Thirty Years War. They are fine miniatures, carefully painted with a pointed brush on ivory, which has long since yellowed. One cannot but think of the difficulty the artist must have had in capturing those stern, proud features with his soft, marten-hair brush. All of the white ruffled collars, the lace, the puffed sleeves and on the "gentlemen," the jabots have a frivolous effect on these portraits dating from the beginning of the eighteenth century. "Ladies"? "Gentlemen"? No, indeed! In spite of the velvet and silk there is not a "lady" nor a "gentleman" among them.

They are all women and men - and that says far more than the "gentleman" of today. For they, there on the wall, living again in their portraits - were free! This is what we have come to, that we must banish our ancestors to pictures or vital statistics on the wall in order to give them a faint presence in our dim memories. Ancestors?

People today do not even know the birth dates and death dates of their own parents. Of course, they are written down somewhere. It is a wonder if one knows even a little about his grandfather, not to mention his great-grandfather. As for great-great-grandfather, one does not think about him at all. as if he had never existed.

Earlier - much earlier - things were different. That was before words had become but mere merchandise, used to concoct lies, when a man still lived by his word; then it was not necessary to write down and record one's ancestors.

That was a time when the living flow of blood from son to father, from father to grandfather and great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather still had not been choked off. It had not yet sunk, as it has today, so deep beneath all of the alien values within mind and soul, that most of us can no longer hear its rustle, even in the stillest hour. Once the whole past dwelt in the hearts of the living. And from this past the present and the future grew upward like the strong limbs of a healthy tree.

And today? They laugh at the fables of our Folk, They do not even understand them. Nevertheless, that which remains with us from the "Once upon a time" of our fables, serves as a reminder, a finger showing us the way back into the millennia of our great past. You believe that we have no use for what is past and gone? Nonsense! The man in whose breast the "Once upon a time" of his race is no longer awake - has no future which truly belongs to him. How timely would be the appearance of a man who would teach us again the meaning of our fables, and show us that our struggle for the freedom of the earth which has borne us was, also, the struggle of our ancestors a hundred and a thousand years ago!

Did you know that when you read about Snow White and the Wicked Queen who came over the mountains, that those mountains she had to cross each time she came to kill Snow White were the Alps, and that the Queen came from Rome, the deadly enemy of everything Nordic? Think about the Queen's Daily query: "Mirror, mirror on the wall, Who is the fairest of them all?" When you think of this saying think about Rome, which could not rest until everything Nordic, bright and joyful was exterminated, and only darkness remained - dark like the Wicked queen in the fairy tale, so that she could be the fairest in all the land, after everything white was dead. That which came over the southern mountains to us tolerated no peers.

Everything had to kneel before it and kiss its feet. When the queen came over the Alps the first time, dressed as a peddler from a distant land, she offered Snow White a bewitched corset - bewitched because it was alien. Then she pulled the laces so tight that Snow White fainted and fell. The emissaries of Rome bound the Nordic spirit in the suffocating bonds of alien concepts and deceitful words. But the queen's ruinous plan did not succeed, The dwarves - the good spirits of the Folk - came and freed Snow White. The Frisians crushed the Roman emissaries who tried to break the strength of our people with their doctrines of misery and servitude, For nearly a thousand years the Nordic tribes struggled against the poison from Sinai, which gradually fouled their blood. And when the vain queen again asked her mirror, the answer was: "... but Snow White, over the seven mountains with the seven dwarves is a thousand times fairer than you." Driven by her restless jealousy, the queen came over the snowy wall of the Alps with a new deception. She offered Snow White a magnificent glittering comb, the most exotic thing she had ever seen.

The "Holy Roman Empire" diverted the Nordic will-of-action away from its natural course; one after another, Nordic leaders have gone off to Rome and the consequence has been turmoil and Roman law in our land, which has enchained our Nordic pride. It began with Karl, the eternally cursed Frank, murderer of Saxons. From Aller to Verdun, the blood of the most noble or our people is on his hands. In recognition for his deeds, the Roman priests bestowed upon Karl the title of "The Great."Silent forever are the lips of our Folk who named this wretched Frank, "Karl the Saxon slayer"!

Despite this, the Nordic spirit remained unbroken; the Wicked queen still was not the fairest in the land. And so, for a third visit she came and presented Snow White with a rosy-cheeked, but poisoned apple. The first bite stuck in Snow White's throat and caused her to faint as if dead. This apple symbolized the rejection of our own nature, the abandonment Of tribal ways. "As if dead," the fairy tale says, acknowledges the enormous strength which slumbers in our people, recognizing that one day will come the great hour, when that strength will mightily throw off the chains of Sinai. Has it yet come, this long awaited hour? "Snow White" is but one of the hundreds and hundreds of age-old Nordic tales which remind us, with as many different images, of the difficulties, the oppression and the deep wisdom of our ancestors.

And as Rome cracked its whip over our land, mercilessly annihilating every genuine manifestation of our own nature, our wise forebears wove into these tales, using colorful symbols and allegory, a legacy of our heritage. But Rome's influence extended over our tales and sagas, falsifying them, giving them new meaning and made advantageous to Roman domination. Thus, it was that our people no longer could understand the voice of our ancestors, that we went astray these many centuries, becoming more and more alienated from our own ways and enslaved to Rome, and thus to Judah.

Only he who bears his own soul, living and burning in his breast, is an individual - a master. And he who abandons his own kind is a slave. The key to freedom lies within us! Now we must hearken again to the voice of our ancestors and protect our essence from alien influences, protect that which wants to grow out of our own souls. Stronger than any army is the man who wields the power which resides within him!

Reflectively, i look over the long rows of my ancestors. The last members reach so far back that hardly more than a name and a date on a sheet of paper remain. Yet their voices come alive in my blood, because their blood is my blood.I think of how the French-speaking monks came from Switzerland to convert our forefathers, the Goths and the Vandals. Even their deadly enemies, the Romans said: "Where the Goths are, there virtue rules. And where the Vandals are, there even the Romans become chaste." And to such men the commandments from Sinai were offered as guiding lights for their lives! Can one understand why these men laughed when they heard those commandments, which demanded that they not commit acts they never would have dreamed of committing?

Can one understand that they raised their swords in wrath when the monks told them that they were "born in sin" - these best of the Goths, whose very name means "The Good Ones"? Cannot one understand the unspeakable contempt with which these noble men regarded those who promised them a reward in heaven for abstaining from doing things which, according to their own nature, were beneath the dignity even of animals?

To such men the commandments were brought; men infinitely superior in human dignity and morality than the monks who brought them. For countless generations they had lived far above the moral plateau on which the commandments from Sinai then operated. Thousands of years before the time of the "Christ" the monks claimed to represent, our ancestors had sown the seeds of culture and civilization throughout the world on their fruitful voyages and wanderings.

When I contemplate the small portraits and see in their firmly composed faces the expressions of my ancestors, which compel no more notice of these times, it seems as if we have descended from a high, high ladder - a ladder which we must yet again climb. Nowadays, it is seldom that we can even appear to be like they were. They were on intimate terms with Allfather and did not need to call on halo-wearing intermediaries when they wished to speak to him. And even then, they did not know how to beg; they were too strong, too proud and too healthy for supplication. Blessings prayed for are not true blessings!

They wanted nothing of gifts; either they already had everything they wanted or, if they lacked something, they got it for themselves. Their creed was a saying as brief as a wink and as clear and deep as a mountain stream: "DO RIGHT AND FEAR NO ONE!" As for their religion, there was no necessity to put it into words, which suited a people who were naturally frugal with their words anyway. They carried their spiritual consciousness deep within their souls; it served them like a compass needle which always steers a ship on its proper course.

Was that not a better religion than one which must be written down in a thick book, lest it be forgotten - and which one cannot properly understand until a priest comes and interprets what is written there? And even then, an act of faith is required to believe that this intricate interpretation is correct. In their day, faith grew from the blood and it was knowledge. Today it must be learned, for it is an alien faith, unable to strike roots in our blood. It is dogma and doctrine which none can know and which most of us silently renounce, because it is contrary to nature and reason. Tell me - have we become better since taking on this new religion? A great wordless sorrow resides in the breast of most of us, a boundless sense of homelessness, because the way of our ancestors lives on eternally in our Nordic blood like a dream. We want, once again, to be free of sin - like our ancestors were.

We are tired of being humble and small and weak and all the other things demanded of us by a god who despises his own creations and looks on the world as a den of corruption. We want to be proud again, and great and strong, and to do things for ourselves! How different are those faces there on the wall from the faces of today! Only if one looks very closely does one still find a trace of that clarity of the features in the present generation. What lived so dominantly in our ancestors that it showed in their faces has disappeared back into our blood to dream. That is why faces so often deceive us today. Many a person whose hair color and eye color come from the south, still have the greatest part of their blood from Nordic fathers. And many who appear forgotten by the last two thousand years bear their bright hair and grey or blue eyes only as a deceptive mask, for their blood bears no trace of their fathers from the Northland. The one has only the appearance of the alien and retains his Nordic blood. The other has taken the blood of the alien and retains his Nordic face as an illusory mask.

Which is better? Today, one must look into a person's eyes and see whether or not they are still firm, shining and keen. The soul is illuminated through the eyes and it does not deceive. There were many a rebel among those there on the wall, and men who left home; many had refused to bend to those with power. They could not go crooked, these fellows. They preferred poverty abroad over submission at home. But they did not stay poor for long. Those who went abroad followed the restless stream of their blood, which gave them no rest until they had found themselves; rejecting that which was foreign to them and flowing into the bloodstream of their fathers, and so became conscious links in the chain of ancestors, closing the great kindred circle. When one of these came home again - and they all came home - he had become a calm, complete man. It is hard to describe this quality of completeness. If others are babbling in confusion, and such a man utters softly only a couple of words, then all the others will understand and become quiet and attentive. And such a man does not ask questions; others ask him! Look at their eyes; just as they mastered life, so they stood on intimate terms with death. To them death was life's trusted companion. Those same eyes show up among them even in the most recent generations.

There is one of them; Erik was his name and he fell at Kemmel. The steel helmet on his head seems to be a part of him. His mouth is a hard, straight line. But in his twenty-year-old eyes twinkles a silent laugh. And with this laugh, foreign to his mouth, and a wink, saluting with his fist against his breast, beckoning as he steps past, Erik greeted death. I cannot imagine this Erik, with bent knee and plaintive voice, begging some god up in the clouds for mercy and help.This is the way I picture him: leaping up from a crouch and with a fierce shout, plunging his great sword into a charging enemy - then, still in the same leap, being struck by an arrow and collapsing back to the ground with his final thought, "I gave my best for Germany!" Erik seized the bitter cup with a proud laugh and drank it down in a single draught without a grimace. And he likely rapped the cup with a fingernail, so that all could hear it was empty. He did not pray, "Father, let this cup pass from me." He reached out and seized it for it himself, for he knew... everything necessary is good! Beneath Erik's portrait is his motto, written in his own firm, clear hand: "Let a man be noble, benevolent, loyal and good."

Does that not say far more than those commandments Moses had issued to the depraved rabble in the desert, in order to make that horde grasp the rudiments of humanity? The Commandments were appropriate for that Hebraic bunch. Even the Egyptians had driven them out of their lands. Even as slaves the Hebrews were too wicked and infected Egyptian life. The Hebrews - the chosen people of god! It is ludicrous that anyone take it seriously. A commandment presupposes a transgression. One can recognize from the mere necessity for such commandments (which demand nothing more than the barest behavior required to claim the designation "human beings") to what kind of creatures they had been given creatures truly entitled to claim no more than a resemblance to human beings. To the men of the North these commandments were a slander, an unforgivable insult to their sacred blood. So, there rose out of the burning indignation of the Nordic blood a Wittekind, who returned again and again to lead his people into battle against the doctrines from Sinai. For these teachings are a deadly poison to our blood. You ask - when will Wittekind return no more? Hearken: Wittekind will die only with the last Northman! [Wittekind was Saxon Chief who lead resistance against Charlemagne, King of the Holy Roman Empire, who forced Christianity on the German people. Wittekind was symbolic of Northern Paganism and all out resistance against domination.] So long as a single Aryan lives, Wittekind is alive and the world is not safe from him! Seventy million Aryans on this glorious earth are more than enough for anything that comes from Sinai.

The last remnant who are still pure will still be poised when swords resound on shields and the bugles sound for the last, great battle of this wretched millennium. He who slumbers still, whose blood is dull and sour, no glory for him! He will be thoughtlessly trampled underfoot by the valiant who rush into battle down every street of Aryan homelands. An ancient custom among our kind has remained alive even to the present day in most parts of our Northland. There was a time when it seemed that this practice, handed down to us from our forefathers, would die out. But it has been revived - and the time is at hand when all our great and beautiful people will again recognize the significance of this custom and be made sound by it. Our ancestors gave to each child a powerful name, full of joy and vital energy.

Actually, they only lent him this name. And it became a shining hope for the child, far ahead of him on his life's course.The child bore this name in his soul like his most precious treasure, for it was to him both a goal and a sacred responsibility. This name strengthened the child's soul as he developed into a conscious, mature individual. When the child had become a youth, the elders of the kindred gathered for a celebration, at which they decided whether or not the developed character of the young man suited the name which had been given to him. If the man and the name were found to be in harmony, then his name was given to him for life. Otherwise, the young man chose a suitable name for himself one which characterized his nature. So it came to be that our ancestors were like their names and their names like them. And so their name carried weight like a rune-carved sword, like their word and a handshake, like yea and nay. In Christian times our ancestors were compelled by the new law from abroad to adopt still another name; it was written down in the church register, primarily for the benefit of the census taker. The authorities were obliged to write the living heathen name of a man beside his characterless Christian name in his register, lest it become nothing but a list of phantoms. In those times the most upright men and the proudest women sprung forth from our race. I step closer to the rows of pictures and read the names.

The oldest are: Helge, Fromund, Meinrad, Markward, Ran, Waltari, Eigel, Asmus, Bjoern. Peculiar names, are they not? They are names born from the great language of our people. There is nothing foreign in them, no spurious sound. They ring true to the ear. These names taste of the salty sea, of the heavy, fruitful earth, of air and sunshine - and of the homeland. Do you notice that? A few will notice - but all too few. Their own language has become foreign to them and has nothing more to say to them. After these first rows our ancestors began to name their sons Gottlieb, Christian, Fürchgott, Leberecht, Christoph (which mean: God-lover, Christ- worshipper. God-fearer, Righteous-liver, Christ-carrier) ... Still later came the names Paulus, Johannes, Petrus, Christophorus, Korbinianus, Stephanus, Karolus. By those times our forefathers had no other names.

Do you feel how something has been broken in these men, how they have become alienated from their own nature? Do you feel how steeply the ladder descends? A destiny is locked up in the transformation of these names. It is not the destiny of an individual or of a clan, but of a whole people - our Folk. But then something strange happened. Those who had been named Karolus and Paulus by their fathers suddenly regarded these names as annoying, alien, unsuitable, ridiculous. And now comes the generation that went into the Great War. The names with little iron crosses behind the dates on which they fell - a mere 20 or even fewer years from their birth dates, read: Jochen, Dieter, Asmus, Erwin, Walter. Roland, Georg... These are the names we still have today. And what are the names of our youngest, those who carry their names into the third millennium after the time of Nordic self-forgiveness? Gerhardt, Hartmut, Deitrich, Ingo, Dagwin, Guenther, Hellmut, Gernot, Dagmar, Ingeborg, Helga...Has the Great War done this? The names tell the story. A few men wear priestly garments. But the painter has given us a clue. And whoever is able to find this clue can see how little or how much the strong heart of the man is darkened by the shadow of the black robes he wears. The paintings are all bust portraits, nevertheless in one of them the artist shows a hand. It is a strong, sinewy hand, of the sort which could steer a ship through a storm. The black book in his hand looks like a frivolous toy. Such a hand does not bless an enemy; it crushes him.

His name is Frith. That is a strange name for a priest. "Frith" means -peace robber." Another portrait shows a man with grey, windswept hair. He has a hawkish nose and in his eyes one perceives unlimited vision. Did Ran really bow his head in remorse, repentance and humility? Did he really despise the world and place his confidence in a power other than his own? I know why fate ordained that these men must wear the black robes; had it not been for them, there would be far fewer heathens in the North today; without them there would be many more who would have exchanged their own image of God for an alien one and would have grown weary of their own strength and the world; and many more would have been seduced by the alien doctrine into becoming its slaves and forgetting their own blood.

They are true saints, for they have preserved their healthy inner selves. despite the priests cassocks. They fought the enemy with his own weapon. People called them "HEATHENS". A few were so proud of this title that they incorporated it into their names, as one might don a precious jewel. For the heathen is one who remains true to himself and his kind, whose blood flows pure in his veins. And this pure blood regards the world with neither the hateful sneer of Sinai or the weak knees of Nazareth. It bears divinity, pure, clear and beautiful in its red stream, so long as the race endures. None of these men has ever sought God. One does not seek that which dwells in one's own soul. None of these men has ever been torn with doubt about the divine. Only he who betrays the divinity in himself and offers his soul to an alien god knows such doubt. Doubt is eternal where there is the eternal alien, and thereby the eternal unknown. The Christian is an eternal doubter. Can any man be loyal, who is disloyal to himself? Can any man be great, who is consumed with a longing to return to dust? Can any man be strong, who loves weakness? Can any man be proud, who wanders along in humility? Can any man be pure, who regards himself born in sin? Can any man be happy in this world, who despises the world? And can any man bear the Creator in his soul, who despises divine Creation? What a strange god you Christians have, who created you upright, but who commands you to crawl to him on your knees! We heathens do not beg to our Creator; it would be an insult to the divinity in our souls. Nor do we heathens come to the Creator to complain. We do not proclaim our failures to the world and least of all not to the Creator. We seek to overcome our faults and to grow. Our way is not complaining, but anger - and first of all anger against ourselves. Nor do we repent, we heathens, because we cannot be cowardly; we have the courage to stand by our deeds. Why have you Christians made the name "Heathen" an insult? You should not peddle your pettiness in the streets, for it permits people to see that the love you are commanded to display is bound up with hate, and that the forgiveness your religion requires of you is burdened with your desire for vengeance. Only the envious stoop to insults. We see your envy and are ashamed for you, since many of you are still brothers of our blood. There was a time when it was a disgrace to be a Christian. But then you began to conquer the masses and so you were able to turn the tables and make virtue a disgrace. Then you labeled us the "strange" ones and called us heathens. We have remained "strange", despite your insults. We will never be a mass or a herd. Do you know that there are, also, many among you who are "strange" as we are? Why do you not throw away the beggar's rags which cover the noble garments of your manhood? Are you ashamed to be "strange"? Afraid to be called heathens? When you Christians have finished burying your god in the sky - come to us; we heathens will again show you the Creator. And do not think we have settled accounts with you Christians. We weigh silently - but we do not weigh with false weights.

We do not deceive the God in us, since we do not deceive ourselves. And as we have weighed justly, so have we calculated, so we would be reckoned with justly by God for our souls. You see, we do not repent, since we have nothing to repent. Our value lacks nothing. We retained and preserved our whole worth And now you weigh! And when you have weighed, calculated and evaluated, ask your envious spirit how much you have lost. He who has lost nothing of his worth is without envy - and without hatred for us heathens.

The petty man hates whatever is superior to him, while the great man admires it. The petty man pities whatever is beneath him, while the great man scorns it, if it merits his scorn, or he helps it up. There in his cradle lies my son, reaching, reaching gleefully toward his ancestors' portraits on the wall. This tiny, laughing bundle of life is the next step of the future of my race. I was the last step. He is the next. And behind me I see the path of my race passing back through the distant millennia until it is dimmed by the mist of time - for the generations which came before the earliest on the wall are, also, real. My race's entire path through time i do not know - but, i do know that i live and that i am only a link in the chain in which no link must fail, so long as my people live. Otherwise, I never would have been.

For generations a parchment-bound book has been passed down through our family i open it and inscribe a yellowed page for my son: "Your life is not of this day and not of tomorrow. It is of the thousand years which came before you and the thousand years to come after you. During the thousand years before you, your blood was purely preserved, so that you would be who you are. Now you must preserve your blood, so that all of the generations of the next thousand years will honor you and thank you. "That is the meaning of life, that divinity, awakens in the blood. But only in pure blood does it live! Of whom have I spoken? Of my ancestors? They are only a symbol of the Folk of which i am a living part. To whom have I spoken? To my son? My son is only a part of my Folk. The wisdom of a thousand generations slumbers in you. Waken it and you have found the key which will open the doors of your truest aspirations. Only he who esteems himself is worthy of being a man. Only he is a man who bears the living past and future in himself, for only he is able to stand above the present hour. And only he who is master of the present is successful; he alone is fulfilled. As only in fulfillment is divinity. Thus sayeth the Voice of our Ancestors...

The Pagan Snow White And The Evil Queen Christianity.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Why Revolution?

From Attack! tabloid, Issue No. 6, 1971

“If, by the instrument of governmental authority, a people is being driven to its destruction, then rebellion is not only the right but the duty of every member of that people.”

DURING TIMES OF SOCIAL DECAY and turmoil, the more responsible members of a society will nearly always be found supporting the constituted authority against the hostile or rebellious actions of disruptive elements. For the truly responsible and prudent citizen takes the long view, and he sees (in the words of the Founding Fathers) that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; that, however grievous may be the defects in any governmental policy or even in any system of government, it is nearly always preferable to tolerate those defects and to work for reform rather than to destroy the system.

Order Before Justice

Most injustices and evils on the part of a government are, after all, tolerable, but the absence of order is not. Not only is order an indispensable prerequisite for any form of society and for all human progress, but life itself cannot long continue in its absence.

Western man has been guided in his upward struggle throughout the millennia by an inherent will-to-order. It is an essential aspect of our racial soul. To many, then, it seems natural that the best racial elements of our society should be the champions of law and order, while the worst elements should be the principal proponents of disorder, revolution, and chaos.

Yet, as with most things, there are limits beyond which blind support of governmental authority ceases to be a virtue and becomes instead an evil.

The great question of our day is: How much corruption must be tolerated for the sake of order? When have things gone so far that reform of the System is no longer feasible and revolution becomes the responsible alternative? Where should the line be drawn?

Americans More Servile

History does not help us much. The conditions which, 200 years ago, led our forefathers to decide that the line had been crossed are totally unlike those of today.

We could easily justify the toleration of unfair taxes, of governmental meddling in our personal affairs and infringement of local prerogatives, if we could thereby maintain an orderly society in these vastly more dangerous times.

Although we can admire the American colonists’ fierce intolerance of tyranny, we, having become more servile and practical, would not rebel under similar circumstances. And if the issues troubling us were no more burdensome than those faced by them, the appellation “responsible conservative” would not be such an epithet of ridicule and contempt today.

Government as a Utility

In order to understand when the support of governmental authority stops being responsible and becomes merely obstinate we must examine the basic premises on which any government’s right to exist is founded.

The prevalent view of the government today, shared by both liberals and conservatives, is that it is an expensive but necessary public utility whose principal functions are to maintain law and order, mediate squabbles among the citizenry, and provide certain general services, such as national defense, mail delivery, and a bureau of weights and measures.

There is a diversity of opinion, of course, on details. Laissez-faire conservatives take the attitude that the services provided by government – and, consequently, its operating expense – should be kept at a minimal level. Welfare-oriented liberals are more inclined to demand the maximum of services and not worry about the expense.

Not A Dime’s Worth of Difference

In the most fundamental sense, however, right and left alike regard government from the same viewpoint: It is a dispenser of largesse, an oiler of the machinery of commerce, a source of favors and privileges, a traffic cop and an errand boy. Its role is to help keep society running smoothly so each citizen can “do his own thing” with a minimum of friction from others who are doing their own things.

The consequence of this libertarian concept of government is the catastrophic state of affairs which exists in the Western world today.

We plunder and poison our environment, both physical and spiritual, while the government sits on its hands.

Perversion, drugs, organized crime, and political corruption flourish, and the state can do nothing.

Massive treason occurs in our streets, just as in the highest councils of our land, and rioting aliens burn our cities, while Washington looks on helplessly.

System Is Sick

But this breakdown in operational function is only the outward manifestation of a far graver inner sickness – a sickness stemming from errors of the most fundamental sort in the very premises on which today’s government is based.

It is clear that the men who sacrificed their lives at the Alamo had a deeper motivation than a desire to preserve the police power of the state. And those who died on Iwo Jima did not do so for the sake of the farm subsidy program or an independent judiciary.

Patriotism, in fact, has very little to do with law and order, the protection of property rights, or the regulation of commerce. Contrary to libertarian claims, it has not much to do with freedom either. The preservation of freedom or of “the American way of life” may be convenient concepts around which to build war-propaganda slogans or election clichés, but the reason men are willing to die in battle has more fundamental roots.

Feeling for Own Kind

Though patriotic feeling may be developed and modified in citizens by education or indoctrination, the rudiments of patriotism are inborn. That inborn quality is simply the instinct for the preservation of one’s own kind.

The only government which can rightfully demand of its citizens loyalty unto death is a government based on this fundament. A government properly constituted and a state properly conceived serve to express the collective will of a people – that is, of a group of human beings sufficiently homogeneous in their physical and psychical makeup that the fundamental concept of “kind” has real meaning for every member of that group.

Thus, the state – and much less any government – is no end in itself, but only a means to an end. That end is the preservation and advancement of a people – of a racial community.

The Organic State

Only so far as a state is identified with the vital interests of a people is it entitled to the allegiance of that people. Such allegiance is then equivalent to loyalty to one’s own kind, and such a state is organic in that its existence stems in a natural – one could even say biological – way from a natural community.

Any racially self-conscious citizen finds himself subject to two allegiances: that binding him to his own kind and that obligating him to his government. Of the two, the first has precedence. Only in an organic state do the two coincide.

Multiracialism Is Absurd

A government which claims to represent the vital interests of a multiracial society is not only unnatural but absurd. To whom, for example, does the Bantu in South Africa or the Arab in occupied Palestine give his loyalty – to the government or to his own kind?

Neither the Afrikaners nor the Jews are so foolish as to imagine it will be to the government, despite the multi-racial baloney to which they feel obligated to give lip service. For this reason, both Jew and Afrikaner take care to keep all the strings of government in their own hands.

We in America have not been so smart – but, then, no other nation has ever been subjected to such a program of liberal brainwashing and internal subversion as we have.

A Corrupt Monstrosity

The United States government has, through slow and (until the last 20 years)nearly imperceptible change, been transformed from an organic institution embodying the will and aspirations of a free, White, and proud citizenry to a corrupt, unnatural, and degenerate monstrosity irresponsibly catering to the dissolute tastes, desires, and whims of an increasingly debased, raceless conglomerate of materialistic serfs, products of the urban jungle and the most tyrannical thought-control apparatus the world has ever known.

As the government grinds massively onward, it behaves like a Frankenstein monster out of control. It has become completely alienated from the racial elements which originally created it and gave it life.

This terrible truth manifests itself daily in a thousand ways.

Terror in the Schools

Every White student in the public school systems of America’s cities, racially integrated by decree of the Justice Department, has experienced the terror which stalks his classrooms and recreation fields, hallways and restrooms. The daily shakedowns and beatings, indignities and intimidations bring a feeling of hopelessness and despair, because the government responsible for this classroom terror will not even admit that it exists.

Every White policeman and every White serviceman belonging to a police or military unit racially integrated by decree of City Hall or the Pentagon feels the loss of spirit and efficiency which has come as a result. He is sickened and discouraged by the slackening standards in his once-proud profession, by the growing corruption and rising drug abuse on the part of those who wear his uniform.

An Alien Tide

Every working man whose union has been flooded with under skilled “minority” workers by Labor Department decree senses the loss entailed, not only to his craft or trade but to the nation. If he has any pride of workmanship he must sorrow as the old, hard-earned traditions of skill and excellence yield to the alien tide of “equality.”

Every responsible and racially conscious public-school teacher, who, year by year, sees more and more lies and distortions in the textbooks he must use – textbooks which are being continually “revised” by decree of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare – knows the shame of aiding in the planting of these lies in the minds of his young charges.

Schools Racially Destructive

This is among the most deadly of all the System’s racially destructive activities. Through its iron control over the educational process it deliberately alienates an entire generation of young Americans from their cultural and racial antecedents. It applies the corrosive compound of half-truths and lies, calculated omissions and subtle psychological tricks to destroy all bonds between the individual and his racial community.

Our schools do not truly educate; instead they produce young people who, at worse, are so filled with artificially instilled feelings of guilt and self-hatred, the consequence of never-ending propaganda about “White racism” and the oppression of minorities, that they actively and consciously collaborate with the avowed enemies of our people. At best, we get young men and women who, having been denied the knowledge of the greatness and uniqueness of their race and of their responsibility as the bearers of that greatness and uniqueness, are indifferent to any appeal to racial solidarity. They are all converts to the liberal religion of individuality – the view that the individual exists solely as an end in himself.

Every year – every day – that this deadly process continues brings us closer to that point of no return when there will be so few uncorrupted escapees from the public mind-molding institutions that no effective resistance to the System can any longer be built.

Government Genocide

The United States government does not carry on its genocidal activities blindly or accidentally or against its will. It does not act reluctantly because of pressure from the alien-controlled newspapers and broadcasting networks.

The agencies of government are integral parts of the entire, corrupt System. They work hand in hand with the propaganda media to quench any spark of racial consciousness which might threaten their rule.

Ultimately the System, in order to secure its own evil existence, seeks the destruction of every last remnant of the only race which, having created it, is also capable of destroying it.

Servants of the System

The time has come when we must wake up and realize that the policeman on the street corner and the Congressman in Washington are no longer either our guardians or our servants. They are the guardians and servants of the System – though not necessarily consciously or with malice afterthought. More often they are only timeservers; more-or-less powerless cogs in the machine themselves.

Nevertheless, willingly or unwillingly, it is the System they serve.

The governmental structure which our forefathers built up to serve and protect us has been turned against us. Its strength is no longer our security but our peril. Its weaknesses are no longer our misfortune but our opportunity.

The line has been crossed.

Among racially conscious Americans there is widespread awareness of the destructive role of the System, but an equally widespread paralysis of the will where any remedy is concerned. Part of the fault lies in the fact that with Blacks and Jewish liberals and the spoiled, hairy brats of the Establishment shouting for a revolution, everyone else is inclined to regard revolution as a dirty word. To most mature and thoughtful patriots it is an abomination.

A Trap for Conservatives

This attitude arises from a failure to understand that the “revolutionary” tactics of those elements presently rioting in the streets are only a means of further emphasizing those things we already hate worst in the System. They only want to push us even faster along the road to racial ruin.

Thus, our “responsible conservatives” (and all others) fall into the trap of saying: “No, the System is going fast enough the way you want it. We will oppose your revolutionary demands by defending the System against you.”

And they still vainly seek solutions in the realm of reform rather than revolution: Write a letter to your Congressman. Send a dollar to help awaken your fellow citizens to the dangers of communism. Vote conservative. Join a tax protest. Pray that the earth will open and swallow the Supreme Court.

Present Prosperity a Curse

When the average White working man can own a color TV set, two new cars, and a house in the suburbs, it is very difficult to think revolution. We are comfort corrupted. No matter how bad the System is, we are unwilling to sacrifice our material luxuries for the sake of securing the future of our race.

We find too difficult to accept that it is better that we suffer the worse privations, the most grinding poverty, the most tyrannical oppressions than that, wallowing in comfort, we allow the race to die.

And so we keep looking for easier ways.

But there aren’t any easy ways. Maybe there were 50 years ago, but not today.

It is no longer possible to cure the System – to bring Frankenstein’s monster to heel – by Constitutional methods.

When the electoral process ceased being a person-to-person evaluation and choice of their representatives and leaders from among themselves by a properly qualified citizenry, the governmental forms handed down to us by a free Anglo-Saxon yeomanry lost their original meaning and relevance.

Today’s political shell game, in which the entire public herd is allowed a “choice” from an array of media-generated images, makes a cynical mockery of the very concept of representative democracy.

As long as public opinion is not the spontaneous consensus of a racially and culturally homogenous populace but is the artificially created and manipulated concoction of a small clique of racially alien mind-molders, it is idle to contemplate bringing about, by System-approved means, any significant governmental change contrary to the wishes of those who control the System.

Yet, millions of optimistic patriots perennially convince themselves that they have found an honest politician who, if only they can sneak him past the professionals and get him elected, will outwit the string-pullers and return the American government to the hands of its proper owners. They drastically underestimate the cunning of their masters.

Other millions believe that public enlightenment is the answer. For example, they are under the impression that the catastrophic 1954 Supreme Court decision on racial integration of our schools was the consequence of the court being supplied with faulty information on racial differences. They seriously misjudge the motives of the beast.

A Stake Through The Heart

We do not need to reason with the monster; we need to put a bullet into its brain and hammer a stake through its heart. If that means blood and chaos and battling the alien enemy from house to house in burning cities throughout our land – then, by God, it is better that we get on with it now than later.

If “responsible” citizens have no stomach for it, then the task must fall to our radicalized youth. And it is the responsibility of the National Youth Alliance to take a leading position in coming revolutionary developments, so that young Americans can build a revolution for America and for our people, instead of serving as pawns in the alien-controlled, anti-American and anti-White revolution of the Marxists.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Why don't more respectable, successful, influential White community leaders help our noble cause, Dr. Pierce?

From 'Questions People ask' in ATTACK! tabloid, Issue No. 51, 1977:

Q. The truth of what you say in ATTACK! seems self-evident. I understand that the brainwashed public needs to be exposed to your persuasion as an antidote to the lies pumped into them by the media. But I don't understand why there are not a great many leaders of this country helping you in your efforts -- corporation presidents, statesmen, generals and admirals, celebrities, university presidents. Surely they are not all in the pay of the Enemy or taken in by his lies, are they?

In a sense, nearly all of them are, surprising as that may seem at first. They are in the pay of the Enemy to the extent that they have a vested interest in the maintenance of the System and the upholding of the current ideological orthodoxy. But even more so are they taken in by his lies -- to the extent that certain ideas are unthinkable to them, certain truths inadmissible.

A man who achieves high status in our society does so by learning a behavior pattern which fits well-established behavioral norms. By the time he might otherwise be ready to rebel against the alien domination and subversion of the society in which he has achieved success, he cannot do so. His behavior pattern is cast in iron, and he cannot change his ways, even if he wants to.

[H]eresy has always been the enterprise of a vanishingly small minority in every age.
Likewise, the very social status which he has so painstakingly sought binds him in iron chains. He must not -- he cannot -- stigmatize his gentility. He dare not espouse an idea which has been made disreputable.

It may be easier to realize the strength of these bonds if we back off a bit and look at a historical analogue or two.

A century ago the leaders of Western society damned the greatest revolutionary of their day, Charles Darwin. Among these disapproving leaders were sophisticated, learned men, including thoroughly competent scientists, such as Louis Agassiz, the great naturalist, and John Herschel, the astronomer.

They condemned Darwin because his statement of the facts of biological evolution through natural selection contradicted the Hebrew myths in in the Book of Genesis. It may seem incredible to us today that scientists could ever have believed such nonsense, but the fact is that in the 19th century a literal belief in the Old Testament was assumed, beyond doubt or question, to be held by every "respectable" member of society, just as the equalitarian-humanistic myths of the TV religion of today are accepted without question.

People who should have supported Darwin simply could not. Their minds were too tightly bound by the chains of convention. They were conditioned, much in the way of Pavlov's dogs, to reject, without thinking, anything intellectually disreputable. It requires enormous courage and strength of character to buck the herd instinct -- to accept, even privately, a truly heretical idea, i.e., heretical to the members of one's own peer group. In any age, including ours, very few people possess such courage.
[T]hey did not have the moral strength to be heretics, to cut themselves adrift morally and intellectually from their peer groups and from the "respectable" society of their day.
Gallileo Gallilei was not compelled to recant his scientific findings by cynics or ignoramuses, nor was Giordano Bruno condemned to the stake by a mob of rednecks or Yahoos for explicitly rejecting the anthropomorphic Jewish spookery of the Old Testament. The men who threatened Gallilieo with the rack and sent Bruno into the flames were undoubtedly intelligent and sincere men, learned men, sophisticated men -- but they did not have the moral strength to be heretics, to cut themselves adrift morally and intellectually from their peer groups and from the "respectable" society of their day.

And it is a sad fact that the more successful a person is in a society -- the higher the status he achieves -- the more tightly his soul and his mind become bound by the chains of convention, and the less able he is to break free. Today an ex-senator or a university president can scoff publicly at those who condemned Darwin. And he may even scoff privately, or among the members of his own peer group, at those who burned Bruno, whose conceptions remain heretical to the larger society today.

But he cannot violate the intellectual mores of his own peer group. That would be true heresy, which has always been the enterprise of a vanishingly small minority in every age.

And there are good and natural reasons for this overwhelmingly strong tendency toward intellectual conformity: It guarantees at least a modicum of social stability. But it is unfortunate that it is as often a barrier to progress as it is to social regression.

Friday, December 9, 2011

An Amazing Parallel

The Biology of the Jewish Problem
From Attack! tabloid, Issue No. 50, 1977

The most depressing thing about the impending disaster facing Western civilization is the almost total lack of resistance on the part of those who will be the victims of the disaster. The men and women of the West, as if entranced or under the influence of some mind-numbing drug, not only are not doing anything to avert the cataclysm which lies ahead, but they are positively falling over themselves to aid and assist the engineers of that cataclysm in bringing it about. The murderer asks us for a knife with which to slit our throats and the throats of our children, and we hand him one with alacrity and enthusiasm, apologizing for not having done so sooner.

Ours is a situation which is so bizarre – so nightmarish – that it seems almost unreal. One must continually fight off the impulse tell oneself, "This can't really be happening!" It may be helpful in coming to grips with our all too-real nightmare, therefore, to note that our situation, bizarre as it is, is not unique. There is a strikingly close parallel in the insect world.

The tiny but troublesome fire ant, native to South America but now beginning to become entrenched in wide areas of the southern United States as well, apparently has its own form of the Jewish problem! A fascinating report on the subject, bearing the utterly appropriate title "Subversion Among the Ants," was published TIME magazine more than a decade ago and recently recalled to mind. [See below]

According to the report, scientists noted that in South America the fire ants were much less a problem for farmers than in the United States. Some unknown malady seemed to have robbed them of their natural fierceness, aggressiveness, and industriousness; in other words, the fire-ant "civilization" in South America had become terminally decadent.

When the scientists investigated further they traced the source of the fire-ant decadence to a social parasite – "another species of ants that live without concealment in the fortresses of the fierce fire ants and, by some mysterious influence, make their hosts support them in idle luxury."


[W]hat is this "mysterious influence" ... which blunts their xenophobic instinct and makes them tolerate the alien parasites in their midst?

And what is this "mysterious influence," this fire-ant liberalism, which blunts their xenophobic instinct and makes them tolerate the alien parasites in their midst? The scientists don't know, but they say it is transmitted from the parasites to the hard-working fire ants by a fluttering of the parasites' antennae, "apparently conveying a compelling message that makes the worker feed the parasites..."

Shades of Jewish television! So the ant-parasites do it with antennae too! But the message the media masters convey to us through our TV antennae compels us to do far more than feed their bloodsucking tribe. It robs us of memory of the past and concern for the future. It perverts all healthy instincts. It turns racial pride into sick guilt. It undermines racial solidarity and gives us in its place self-hatred. It makes us abandon our own natural interests and serve instead the interests of the alien parasites and all the racial dregs of the globe.

In other words, just as in the case of the ants, it seduces us into destroying ourselves.

Making the analogy more nearly perfect, we note that, according to the scientists, the parasites which wreck the fire-ant economy while fattening themselves "cannot live except when fed by the fire ants." No more than Jews can live without their Gentile prey to feed on, for they are incomplete creatures, specially adapted by Nature to their parasitic role.

Thus, one never sees a Jewish bricklayer or a Jewish pipefitter, a Jewish lumberjack or a Jewish dirt farmer. Jews do not create – they consume; they manipulate; they buy and sell; they pander; they peddle pills; they mimic; they scheme and shuffle their papers; they sit in their offices and give advice (for a price); they advertise; they strut and prate before the TV cameras (their TV cameras); they scribble lies for the newspapers; they flood our libraries and our bookstores with worthless or poisonous books (which we foolishly praise to the skies); they sicken our children's minds in the schools; they whisper advice into the ears of our politicians; they incite riots and lead demonstrations for "equality"; they judge us in our courts; they reveal our military secrets to our enemies; they own; they rent; they lend; they undermine; they subvert; they destroy.

But they do not, they will not, they cannot feed and house and clothe themselves through their own labor. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Jewish state of Israel itself, the very land of which was stolen from another people and which exists only through the wealth extorted from others, principally in Germany and the United States.

And if there is any value for us in the observation of this amazing parallel between the fire ants and ourselves it is this: we can see that perhaps our problem is more than a political or a social or an economic problem; perhaps it is, more than anything else, a biological problem.


[W]e can see that perhaps our problem is more than a political or a social or an economic problem; perhaps it is, more than anything else, a biological problem.

If the Jews do as they do not through choice but because their inborn nature compels them, and if we respond to them for the same reason – just as the fire ants respond to the "Jewish" ants among them – then our problem assumes an altogether new and different aspect.

If our problem is essentially biological, then realizing this fact should not make us despair of finding a solution. On the contrary, what the Creator has done the Creator can undo. Our race, as the cutting edge of the Creator's tool, can overcome all things and surpass all things, in time. But first must come understanding; first must come consciousness.


An article from the "Science" section of TIME magazine, June 11, 1965, describes a situation in the insect world which is duplicated almost perfectly in the human world.


Subversion Among the Ants
The U.S. South knows few worse pests than the tiny fire ant, an uninvited guest that came up from South America nearly 50 years ago and settled down for a long visit. The little insects bite people, raising painful lumps, attack livestock, nibble crops and foul up expensive farm machinery with their hard earthen nest mounds. For years nothing could check their spread: massive attacks with chemical dusts and sprays all failed. Now it looks as if the Department of Agriculture has finally found an answer to the curse of the fire ants: still smaller ants that seduce the fire ants into destroying themselves.
Social Parasite. Uruguayan scientists working for the department stumbled on the secret while they were searching for a fungus or a bacteria that might be fatal to fire ants. They discovered that in Uruguay, where the ants are native, they are no serious problem. Often they are so weak that they build flimsy nest mounds, which wash away in the rain. This suggested not an ant killer but a social parasite.

The nests contained various parasites, but the most important turned out to be another species of ants that live without concealment in the fortresses of the fierce fire ants and, by some mysterious influence, make their hosts support them in idle luxury. Usually, a few of the parasites cling to the fire ant queen by means of specially adapted mandibles that fit around her neck without hurting her. When a worker comes to feed her with regurgitated food, the parasites flutter their antennae, apparently conveying a compelling message that makes the worker feed the parasites instead of the queen.

The parasites that cling to the queen are females, and when she lays her eggs they lay eggs of their own. Dutifully, the fire ant workers care for both sets of eggs and raise the infant parasites just as tenderly as if they were young of their own species. The parasites thrive while their considerate hosts all but work themselves to death taking care of them. The fire ant economy is wrecked. The healthy parasites mate conveniently in the nest, and then fly away to subvert and weaken other fire ant colonies.

Biological Weapon. The parasites have been found only in association with fire ants. Apparently, they cannot live except when fed by the fire ants with their regurgitations. This dependence makes them promising as a potent biological weapon.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

The Destruction of the Academy

From National Vanguard Magazine Issue No. 112, January-February 1992:

The debate over the enforcement of Political Correctness at American colleges and universities has been raging in the print media long enough that everyone from the party-loving frathouse jock to the most uncool computer nerd on campus has been made at least dimly aware that he must be careful what he says when talking about anything even remotely racial or sexual in nature.

One must never use the word "girl" in referring to any female over 10 years of age or the word "boy" in referring to a Black male of any age. (And one must not use the word "Black" either, which is considered by the most Politically Correct thinkers to be almost as offensive as "Negro," "darky," or "nigger"; the only acceptable designation now is "African American.")

Homosexuals must never be referred to as "queers," "lesbos," "dykes," "fruits," "faggots," "fairies," or anything else but "gays" (except when the speaker is himself or herself of the sodomite persuasion: "queer" is now in vogue as a self-descriptive term among the pervert avant garde).

If one really wants to be on the safe side, he also should use the term "Politically Correct" (or its abbreviation, "PC") as sparingly as possible -- and certainly never with a smile on his face or a hint of derision in his voice -- lest he indicate that he is one of those benighted souls whom the Red Guardist cadres of Political Correctness have been charged with re-educating. The PC position is that there is now and never has been a program to enforce Political Correctness, and that the term itself was invented by bigots and reactionaries to stigmatize progressive, right-thinking folks.

Does that sound a bit Orwellian? Alas, Orwell himself would be dumbfounded by the present state of affairs on our campuses. At the University of Connecticut students may be expelled for "conspicuous exclusion [of a female, non-White, or homosexual student] from conversation" or for "inappropriately directed laughter"; i.e., laughter at a "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobic" joke or at or about a woman or a member of a protected minority group in a way which might cause embarrassment or injured feelings. Although the University of Connecticut conduct code doesn't spell it out, perhaps an inappropriately directed smirk or smile or grin would draw the same penalty as actual laughter, especially for a repeat or unapologetic offender. Remember Orwell's definition of "facecrime"?

At the University of Minnesota six professors recently were charged with sexual harassment. The specifics of the charges included such offenses as not greeting a female student in a friendly enough manner, not teaching in a sensitive enough way, and not having read a certain feminist-favored novel. Eventually the charges were dropped, but only after the professors had been subjected to an ordeal of calumny and intimidation and had gone to great lengths of grovelling and self-abasement to prove themselves innocent of any non-PC tendencies.

At the University of Michigan a student who recited a limerick which speculated jokingly about the homosexuality of a well known athlete was required to attend "gay-sensitivity" training sessions and write a letter of self-criticism for publication in the campus newspaper, under threat of expulsion.

Pages could be filled with similar outrageous -- or amusing or alarming -- anecdotes about the excesses of Political Correctness, but anecdotes alone, no matter how outrageous, cannot give us a full understanding of the disaster which has befallen our universities. Many people have the belief that the enforcement of Political Correctness is simply an effort by well-intentioned university administrators to keep the peace on campuses with increasing numbers of minority students: that the main thrust of their effort has been to restrain uncivil students from using expressions like "kike" or "nigger" or "queer" or "bitch" in referring to their fellow students, thereby giving offense and disrupting the orderly climate of learning. People with this belief generally regard anecdotes of the sort cited here as evidence that in a few cases the efforts to maintain civility have become a little overzealous and have gone a little too far in the direction of restricting speech and other forms of expression. They tend to believe that what we need to do is guard against these excesses and protect the freedoms of students and faculty members to protect their First Amendment rights -- within reasonable limits, of course.

Such people miss the whole point. The drive for Political Correctness is not an overzealous effort to maintain an orderly learning environment at our universities; on the contrary, it is a manifestation of the determination of certain elements inside and outside the universities to insure that the universities not be permitted to perform their traditional function of educating and civilizing a leadership elite for the next generation of Americans.


[T]he cant and humbug of Political Correctness are largely confined to the humanities, the "soft" sciences...


To be sure, there is among the PC cadres an element motivated primarily by the desire to maintain civility -- or, rather, to avoid giving offense. There always have been those excessively tender-minded souls who flinch at the very thought of saying anything which might hurt someone else's feelings. A cripple must never be referred to matter of factly as a cripple, but as a "physically disadvantaged person'; a man who likes to bugger little boys must under no circumstances be made to feel that his behavior is considered distasteful, unnatural, or contrary to the public interest; a woman must not be reminded that she is in any way different from a man, because that might limit her self-image and lead her to resign herself to motherhood and housewifery instead of pursuing a career as a corporate raider or a mud wrestler; a Black -- oops, an African American -- must not be laughed at or even gently corrected when, full of the absurdities and pufferies of one of the "Black history" courses now being offered at most major universities, he proudly claims that Hannibal and Cleopatra were of his race.

Solicitude for the feelings of others and the avoidance of unnecessary offense always have been characteristics of a gentleman. Women traditionally have gone a bit further and put a high premium on being "nice," even at the expense of truth. Elevating niceness to the ultimate virtue, however, has become possible only in a society which has completely lost its moral bearings. Such niceness is the virtue of emasculated men and women deranged by the ravings of the feminists.


Women traditionally have gone a bit further and put a high premium on being "nice," even at the expense of truth.

Such niceness is the principal motivation of only a relatively tiny element among the cadres of Political Correctness, however, even though it plays a substantially larger role among the camp followers of the movement. The cadres themselves are recruited mainly from the ranks of the radical feminists, the militant homosexuals, and the racial-minority activists (Blacks, mestizos, Asians, Amerindians, etc.). Their ranks are supplemented by a sprinkling of very sick White males hoping to atone through self-flagellation for their sins of Whiteness and maleness, a few die-hard Marxists who have established a final redoubt in America's universities, and a very significant contingent of Jews -- about whom more later.

The sayings and writings of these cadres, taken as a whole, leave no doubt that their aim goes far beyond protecting the sensibilities of hypersensitive minorities. One of the main thrusts of the Political Correctness movement has been to stamp out what they call "Eurocentrism" in university curricula. Their contention is that traditional curricula, freighted as they are with the writings of "dead White European males" -- "dwems" for short -- are not only irrelevant to the needs of today's university students but are absolutely harmful.

PC Professor Stanley Hauerwas of the Duke University Divinity School complains, "The canon of great literature was created by High Anglican assholes to underwrite their social class."

A Politically Correct committee at Tulane University has prepared a report on "race and gender enrichment" which laments: "It is difficult for us to see and overcome racism and sexism because we are all the progeny of a racist and sexist society."

There is, of course, truth in the assertion of Tulane's Red Guardists about the nature of European society. Pick almost any White male writer of prominence from any era prior to the Second World War, and you can be practically certain that his message will be tainted with racism, sexism, homophobia, paternalism, patriarchism, imperialism, or some other streng verboten "ism."

Open Virgil's great epic from the first century before this era, and the first words we see are, "Of arms and the man I sing..." Not "Of arms and the person": clearly a male-centered, sexist screed.

Fourteen hundred years later Geoffrey Chaucer still was writing in the same vein, of a husband invited to keep tally of debts on the tail of his wife and a "cursed Jew" who slit the throat of a Christian child in an act of ritual murder. 
Geoffrey Chaucer [wrote] of ... a "cursed Jew" who slit the throat of a Christian child in an act of ritual murder.


A century and a half after Chaucer the great Martin Luther was writing of the Jews: "The sun has never shined on such a bloodthirsty and vindictive people, who cherish the idea of murdering and strangling the Gentiles. No other men under the sun are more greedy than they have been, and always will be, as one can see from their accursed usury. They console themselves that when their Messiah comes he will collect all the gold and silver in the world and divide it among them."

Toward the end of the 16th century William Shakespeare was writing of the Jew Shylock and his demand for a pound of flesh.

In the 18th century we may be tempted to peek into the works of the Founding Fathers -- oops! make that the Founding Parents. Thomas Jefferson wrote that Whites and Blacks were so manifestly different that they could never live as equals in the same society. Benjamin Franklin's often quoted  advice on choosing a mistress would send today's feminists into orbit.

In Germany at the same time (and well into the next century) Wolfgang von Goethe was inspiring his own countrymen with his patriotic writing. We could nail him for sexism, racism, or any of a half-dozen other heresies. For example: "The important thing is that the race remain pure: in this way we become a people! And only in this way will we be able to preserve and enhance the German character."

Moving further into the 19th century, we can look into the works of the better known and better loved English language writers. Take Edgar Allen Poe. One needs go no further than the third paragraph of what is probably his bestknown tale, The Gold Bug: "In these excursions he was usually accompanied by an old Negro, called Jupiter...who could be induced, neither by threats nor by promises, to abandon what he considered his right of attendance upon his young "Massa Will.'"

Or how about Rudyard Kipling? Do we want to know what secrets lurk in the covetous heart of "dark Israel"? We'll find that in his Song of the Fifth River, among other places, Do we want White supremacy? Here is a snippet from his poem A Song of the White Men: "...Well for the world when the White men drink to the dawn of the White Man's day!" Do we want imperialism? We'll find it in nearly everything he wrote.

Charles Darwin, easily the most significant writer of the last century, remarks in his The Descent of Man, in a chapter in which he compares the mental powers of men and other animals: " little can the hard worked wife of an Australian savage, who uses very few abstract words, and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness, or reflect on the nature of her own existence." This is only one of a hundred passages of Darwin's which would have the Red Guards of Political Correctness shrieking for his blood.

In Russia, at the same time, Feodor Dostoievsky was condemning the avaricious nature and practices of the Jews, most notably in his Diary of a Writer [see "Dostoievsky on the Jews"]. Nicolai Gogol was writing much the same thing about Russia's Jews in fictional form, in his novel, Taras Bulba.

It is easy enough to hunt out explicitly heretical passages from the writings of virtually every contributor of note in the edifice of Western civilization, from the days of Homer to those of Thomas Stearns Eliot and William Butler Yeats, but it is not really necessary. When racism, sexism, and the other heresies are not explicit, they nearly always are implicit. One does not expect to find many commentaries on the shortcomings of the Negro by European writers when there were no Negroes in Europe, but European society was nonetheless "racist" in every fiber of its being. European men usually loved their women, who usually reciprocated, but their society was as "sexist" by today's Politically Correct feminist standards as it was racist.

A generation ago it was enough to attempt to shield students from the more explicit reminders of these facts: to explain away Luther's and Dostoievsky's denunciations of the Jews as aberrations, to make a few excuses of Poe's depictions of Blacks, to skirt around Kipling's more forceful calls for White pride. Anthologies compiled for classroom use carefully omitted the writings which were too hard to explain away.

This bowdlerizing of European civilization in an attempt to make it palatable to a diverse horde of students and teachers without European roots, as well as to growing numbers of disturbed White men and women whose inability to come to grips with their genders make the traditional "sexism" and "homophobia" of our civilization hateful, was utterly dishonest, and it was bound to fail.

The first postwar generation of White professors and university administrators (i.e., those who began retiring in the 1970s) -- the authors of the policy of bowdlerization -- was characterized by timidity and hypocrisy. Many of them were not happy with the moral compromises they were making, but what were they to do? Some simply didn't have the courage to come right out and say that the bearers of Western civilization had committed a collective act of suicide by engaging in the Second World War: that America and Britain, in particular, had been tricked into fighting against everything on which the cultural ascendency of the West is based, and that now they must either repudiate their role in the war or look forward to the eventual abandonment of their heritage altogether. Had the war not been fought in the name of equality and democracy, and is that not what Political Correctness is all about?

Others had already developed the habit of moral ambiguity, and it was easier to compromise even further than to draw a line and take a stand.

The second postwar generation (i.e, those entering their professions during the quarter-century since about 1965) grew up in the television age and went through puberty under the influence of the Beatles, the Students for a Democratic Society, the Yippies, and the media deification of Martin Luther King; with cities being set to the torch by Black rioters and looters, while the media and the politicians blamed "White racism" for the turmoil; with permissiveness, the denial of individual accountability, the belief that all points of view are equally valid, and protests against every form of authority. The youngest members of this generation were weaned on Sesame Street and sent to racially integrated schools.

They grew up, in other words, in a time of cultural, moral, and racial chaos, and they reached maturity with no clear sense of identity, no firm cultural roots, and no moral bedrock as a basis for their values. They were ready to go with the flow, wherever it might lead: to take their direction from anyone with a loud enough voice.

This moral vacuum provided the perfect opportunity for any interest group which could organize itself on a large enough scale for its voice to be heard. Many groups organized, and the media perversely provided the loudest megaphones for precisely those with the most destructive aims. The feminists, the homosexuals, and the racial minority activists, who in healthier times would be sent scurrying back to their holes, were first tolerated on the campuses and later welcomed with open arms. There they have formed an interest bloc strong enough to swing an increasing amount of weight in setting policy. Despite their diversity they have a common hatred which unites them: a raging, burning hatred for the White, heterosexual, patriarchal society which abhorred and rejected them.

Anyone who thinks that the preceding sentence is an exaggeration has not paid attention to what the PC cadres are saying.

When Black professor Jane Jordan was criticized for teaching her English class at the Stony Brook campus of the State University of New York in Black ghetto dialect instead of standard English, she defended herself thus: "Should we use the language of the killers -- standard English -- in order to make our ideas acceptable to those controlling the killers?"

The more radical feminist professors preach that the only ways in which women can gratify their sexual feelings and retain their self-respect are through lesbianism and masturbation. To yield to sexual attraction for a man is to betray their own gender and consort with "the enemy." Women who date are railed at as "prostitutes." Allison Jagger, a PC professor at the University of Cincinnati and chairperson of the American Philosophical Association's Committee on the Status of Women in Philosophy, teaches her students that the traditional family is a "cornerstone of women's oppression" and should be abolished.

The students and professors who attracted national attention during the last two years with their successful campaign to eliminate the "Eurocentric" character of the humanities curricula at Stanford University weren't merely trying to have a few changes made or a few minority-oriented courses added; their chant was, "Hey, hey, no, no, Western culture's got to go!"

The statements of Politically Correct academics are replete with references to the "oppression" and "exploitation" of women, racial minorities, and homosexuals by heterosexual White males, and the texts which have become required reading for all students at Politically Correct universities are brimming over with resentment at wrongs inflicted and with exhortations for revenge. One should not be surprised, of course, that minority activists long steeped in this literature of resentment should hate those they have been persuaded are their oppressors.

It goes beyond that, though -- as it reaches from the universities down into the high schools and elementary schools. A master plan for multicultural education put forward two years ago by New York State Education Commissioner Leonard Sobol is based on the thesis that "intellectual and educational oppression has characterized the culture and institutions of the European-American world for centuries." The remedy for this intolerable situation, according to Mr. Sobol and his colleagues, is to require that "all curricular materials be prepared on the basis of multicultural contributions" so that non-White children "will have higher self-esteem, while children from European cultures will have a less arrogant perspective."

We may be tempted to laugh when we hear one of Mr. Sobol's race complain about arrogance in others, but it is no laughing matter. The aim of the cadres of Political Correctness is not merely to make Blacks feel good about themselves by convincing them that their ancestors were founders of great civilizations and that the only reason for their own non-achievement is "oppression" by Whites. It is, more urgently, to squelch White racial consciousness and pride. It is to confuse heterosexual White males (and females), to keep them off balance, to make them feel apologetic, even guilty. It is to morally disarm "the killers," to emasculate them, to prepare them to accept annihilation quietly.

We may be tempted to laugh when we hear one of Mr. Sobol's race complain about arrogance in others, but it is no laughing matter. 

One may think this is too ambitious a program. Certainly, the radical feminists who would like to persuade all other women not to consort with "the enemy" have not made a very large dent in heterosexual activity on our campuses -- although they have sown all too many seeds of discord between men and women which surely will sprout later. And claims about the superiority of ancient Black cultures are generally ignored, even if few have the courage or honesty to refute them.

Furthermore, the cant and humbug of Political Correctness are largely confined to the humanities, the "soft" sciences, and the vast array of postwar "mickey mouse" and vocational curricula which have invaded the campuses. A student whose aim is to become a microbiologist, an electrical engineer, or a computer scientist will be too busy with facts to pay much attention to propaganda.

Nevertheless, the damage done has been enormous, and the threat of even greater damage is ominous. Whites have been confused. They have been put on the defensive. Some of the lies have stuck.

Consider, for example, the reactions of students, faculty members, and university administrators to a simple call for concern about the future for the White race. Members of the National Alliance, an organization whose principal activity is the publication of materials designed to raise White racial consciousness, have distributed on university campuses around the country a large number of stickers bearing the text: "Earth's most endangered species: the White race. Help preserve it." The only other thing on the three-inch by five-inch, fluorescent orange stickers is a request for interested persons to contact the National Alliance for further information, with a mailing address and a telephone number.

One might think that people seeing such a sticker would either be interested in its message, in which case they would note the address and write to the National Alliance, or they would be uninterested and simply ignore it. In fact, however, the stickers have caused a furor whenever they have appeared on a campus. Blacks, Jews, and members of other minority groups have reacted rationally, denouncing the National Alliance and the persons who posted the stickers. After all, the last thing they want is for White Americans to develop the same sort of racial consciousness which gives the minorities their own strength. As they have said many times in their calls for racial solidarity among their own people, "We've got Whitey on the run now; let's keep him running!"

It is the irrational fear of many Whites which provides the real evidence of the damage done by the program of thought control at our colleges and universities.

When stickers appeared on campus of Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales, a Roman Catholic school in Pennsylvania, last spring, the president of the college, Reverend Daniel Gambet, sent a letter to all students and faculty members warning them not to be influenced by what he described as "hate literature." He went on to say, "We believe it is important to publicly and unequivocally condemn this kind of material and the intolerant behavior which produces it."

When the National Alliance stickers were posted on the campus of Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, New York, last fall, faint hearts were set aflutter again, and a group of especially guilt-stricken Whites organized an "anti-racism" meeting on campus, while the administration announced that it had "contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the FBI will investigate the National Alliance."

The same stickers on the campus of William Paterson College in Wayne, New Jersey, provoked education professor Edward Bell to demand that the trustees of the college "do something" to protect Black students on the campus and resulted in breathless newspaper articles and urgent meetings of the college's "bias harassment panel."

When not only stickers but a proposal to form a campus group, a White Students' Union, to implement the message on the stickers appeared on the Minneapolis campus of the University of Minnesota last year, an uproar began that still has not died down. The organizers of campus Jewish groups, Black groups, Asian groups, feminist groups, and homosexual groups are accepted calmly by other students and by the faculty and administration, but the organizer of the White Student Union, mild-mannered, soft-spoken senior Tom David, is a constant center of controversy. His presence on the campus provokes hand-wringing editorials in the student newspaper about "bigotry," disgustingly wimpish letters to the editor by White males eager to confess the guilt of their kind, and rallies aimed at restoring the racial harmony on the campus David supposedly has upset.

In general, the reaction of many young White men and women to the National Alliance's stickers is similar to what one might have expected in 1892 if someone had distributed fliers on campuses promoting free love and illustrating the concept with a photograph of a nude, copulating couple. Sex was the taboo subject then, the subject that decent people didn't talk about and pretended that they didn't think about. Any mention of it released a rush of confused emotions: guilt, fear, embarrassment. Anyone so indiscreet as to challenge the taboo was denounced by many and hated by others. Rational debate was a rarity.

Sex was the taboo subject then, the subject that decent people didn't talk about and pretended that they didn't think about... Today the taboo subject is race.

Today the taboo subject is race: rather, any deviation from the Politically Correct position on race. Just as the parents, teachers, preachers of a century ago managed to persuade young people, at a subconscious level, that their natural sexual feelings were somehow unclean, perhaps even sinful, and therefore to be kept repressed, the increasing harangue about "White racism" and the supposed White male repression, exploitation, and general mistreatment of practically everyone else has had its effect. Even the suggestion that the White race ought to concern itself with its survival releases a flood of confused and disturbing feelings. No one can say quite why such a suggestion is "hate" or "bigotry," simply because, as was the case with sex a century ago, debate has been stifled and the persuasion has taken place largely at a subconscious level.

Which is not to say that some of the lies have not come to the surface; after White students have been put on the defensive subconsciously, they are inclined not to stick their necks out by debating the propositions that "diversity" is to be valued above homogeneity, that there are no significant racial differences in ability or character, and that men and women are essentially interchangeable units and should have the same roles in society.

This is grievous damage indeed. Those students also are damaged, however, who for whatever reason -- perhaps stronger character or less susceptibility to group pressure -- remain free of any feeling of guilt or of obligation to tolerate every minority impudence. They may still be able to learn their chemistry or their mathematics as well as ever, but to the extent that the insanity of multiculturalism has corrupted the teaching of history, of literature, of philosophy, of anthropology, and of other subjects they are robbed of their education and therefore of their culture, their civilization, and their identity. Universities cease to function in their natural role as formative institutions for the intellectual elite and become mere vocational training centers. And that was the way it was planned.

The reaction which has developed on our campuses to the crusade for Political Correctness is in some ways more dangerous than the sickness it purports to be attempting to cure. We can perceive the truth of this statement if we look closely at the position taken by the reaction -- and at the leading personalities in the reaction.

At Yale University, for example, the recognized leader of those holding the line against the zanier excesses of the Red Guards is the dean of the undergraduate arts and sciences students, Donald Kagan. He is widely hailed as a force for reason and moderation in Academia, because he has refused to be stampeded into going along with those who insist that homosexuals be elevated to a privileged status and Eurocentrism be replaced with Afrocentrism. He has even gone so far as to refuse to appoint a cadre of openly homosexual senior counselors for incoming freshmen, as Yale's organized perverts have demanded; and when Black students erected unsightly shanties on the campus as a protest against South African apartheid Kagan reminded them that the structures were in violation of university rules.

Kagan is a Jew. So is student Jonathan Adler, the editor of the Yale Free Press, generally considered a conservative and politically incorrect periodical. Dinesh D'Souza, the author of one of the most scholarly critiques of the excesses of Political Correctness, Illiberal Education, is an Indian. Not every publicist with a politically incorrect voice is non-White, but non-Whiteness helps. Most White, male academics who still retain their freedom of thought are afraid to exercise their freedom of speech, lest they be condemned as "racists," "anti-Semites," or what have you.

Among the PC cadres themselves Blacks are at least as noticeable as the Jews, but not as influential; the Black cadres, with their often ludicrous ideas about history and their bizarre attempts to assert an African identity, provide the comic relief and the muscle for the movement, while the Jews -- assisted, of course, by the feminists, sodomites, etc. -- provide the brains.

Political Correctness a Jewish phenomenon . . . in the same sense as Marxism is Jewish.

It is not just the disproportionate presence and influence of Jews which justify calling Political Correctness a Jewish phenomenon, however. It is Jewish in the same sense as Marxism is Jewish: that is, because the propaganda of human equality and of cosmopolitanism which validates it is Jewish in origin, because the principal off-campus support for the movement has come from the Jew-controlled entertainment and news media -- and because the foundations for it were laid in a horrendously cruel and bloody war fought to serve Jewish interests and advance Jewish sociopolitical theories.

The reaction studiously avoids mentioning any of this, of course, and it avoids attacking Political Correctness at its roots. In fact, it accepts the same axioms that its PC opponents do: namely, the axiom of equality and the axiom of cosmopolitanism. It believes in "diversity" and multi-culturalism -- in moderation, of course. In his 1991 address to Yale's freshmen Kagan gloated over the fact that the university, once virtually all White, had been transformed into a mirror of America's multiracial society. He said that Yale's new "diversity is a source of strength and it should be a source of pride as well." His restrained warnings not to scrap Western culture entirely just because it was built by dead, White, European males are usually accompanied by praise for the increasing attention being paid to Black studies and other PC areas of interest. He supports Yale's program of compulsory roommate assignments for freshmen, in which an effort is made to mix races as much as possible in the dormitories, and he says that he is happy that upperclassmen are not resegregating themselves to any large degree.

The same general pattern is to be found at most of America's universities. On one side are the nutcase weirdos, the hate-crazed dykes and fags, the dashiki-clad Blacks nursing their resentments, the Red Guardists raging incoherently at the White, male, heterosexual world; and on the other side are the cooler heads counseling a slower but surer strategy for destroying the White world. Most of the former are too silly to be taken seriously; the latter, however, by appearing to champion the cause of sanity and moderation manage to preempt most of the opposition to the lethal principles the former represent while embodying those same principles themselves.

It really is a tragedy. America once had some truly great universities. They not only turned out scholars; they also imbued those who passed through them with a certain sense of identity, with a feeling for the race's past and a sense of responsibility for its future. They helped with the business of sorting out values and fixing priorities.

[O]ne cannot put a sense of honor back into academics who compromised theirs away. And without honor one cannot expect truth to prevail.


Greatness cannot exist with egalitarianism, however. Most of America's universities are beyond redemption today. One can put down the loonies and chase the freaks and aliens off the campuses, but one cannot put a sense of honor back into academics who compromised theirs away. And without honor one cannot expect truth to prevail.

The universities will, however, be a battleground through the coming years, and the combatants will not be just the PC cadres and the reactionaries now pretending to hold them in check; there also will be those who understand the fundamentals and fight on that basis. Perhaps one day we all will be grateful to the minions of Political Correctness for having drawn for us in such bold and clear strokes the real meaning of egalitarianism and thereby give us the impetus to do what is necessary to deal with this disease of the soul.