Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 5th, 2013 #21
Jean West
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 476
Jean West

Thanks for posting this, I just noticed it. It's always enjoyable to hear Pierce speaking the words himself, instead of just reading them (thought that's always enjoyable, too!)
Old August 5th, 2013 #22
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
James Hawthorne's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,038
Blog Entries: 89
James Hawthorne

Originally Posted by Jean West View Post
Thanks for posting this, I just noticed it. It's always enjoyable to hear Pierce speaking the words himself, instead of just reading them (thought that's always enjoyable, too!)
You are welcome. Don't forget there are Dr. Pierce broadcasts that have been made into video's. Type "Dr. William Pierce" in Google search and clck video's.

Also check the video site in my sig for Dr. Pierce vids too
Aryan Matters

VNN Media
Old September 11th, 2014 #25
Robbie Key
Senior Member
Robbie Key's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,962
Robbie Key

William Pierce was born on this very day 81 years ago. In 1933, that is. I hope he's resting in peace.

Here's a near complete collection of his radio talks:
Old October 4th, 2014 #26
Robbie Key
Senior Member
Robbie Key's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,962
Robbie Key

Criticism of Pierce:

William Pierce

Pierce was rigid where Rockwell seemed to have had a more fluid and amiable intelligence.

I distinctly remember Pierce saying that he does “not blame a White woman for taking up with a buck” (tactlessly flattering name for a Negro male) when she sees all these sissified White men by comparison.

Well, I blame her and a lot of other things. But that’s objectivism for you, and that’s a bi-product of scientism.

Nevertheless, Pierce was not above addressing popular culture and did render incisive criticisms, including from whence race mixing was pushed.

He did criticize popular culture, the Clinton administration, so many things that many in the struggle are just too cool to criticize (has to be all W. Bush, not Clinton, right? - god how I hated Clinton, and thank you Pierce for skewering that rat).

Pierce was a very intelligent man, of course - a physicist. His analysis of the problems that beset the White race were more clear, deep and comprehensive than most can manage. For the clarity and confidence that he provided amidst modernity’s chaos, it makes sense that his view would be adopted by many as facilitating ready sense making. But there are problems with his being quite so influential. Firstly, what you would expect from a scientist - scientism: this is one of the White race’s vulnerabilities. It is dangerous and instinctively turns people off who have any sort of sensitivity and social sensibility, let alone philosophical sophistication.

Pierce’s understanding of history was insufficient as well. I had a Belarusian colleague listen to some of Pierce with me and he did not even want to finish listening to the pod cast because he felt Pierce’s understanding of some fundamentals were so inaccurate. what could this be alluding to?

His scientism and insufficient historical orientation, coupled with the appeal of the American demographics as I have noted, probably contributed to an overly favorable opinion of Hitler and Nazism on the part of Pierce. It is very unfortunate, because he was in many ways incisive, and he was influential - I have yet to come across a case of a prominent American exponent of WN who has a favorable view of Hitler who did not come through the William Pierce school of thought.

I am satisfied that is a large and unnecessary mistake which he had a significant part in setting in motion; therefore, a more elaborate critique of Pierce is in order.
Old December 2nd, 2014 #27
Michael Olanich
Junior Member
Michael Olanich's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New York
Posts: 133
Michael Olanich
Default Previously unreleased speeches now up on National Vanguard

I've collaborated with Mr. Strom this past year to make available 4 previously unreleased speeches(on the web) by Dr. Pierce, which are now being properly hosted on National Vanguard. They can be streamed or downloaded from the links below.

Fundamentals for Victory and Change versus Progress

The Trouble With People and America the Sleepwalker

Old May 10th, 2015 #28
Robbie Key
Senior Member
Robbie Key's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,962
Robbie Key

The Radicalizing of an American
By Dr. William L. Pierce

From National Vanguard Issue No. 61, 1978

National Vanguard's editor describes his spiritual and intellectual evolution from a non-political university professor into a White radical.

Until I was 30 years old, I had hardly given a thought to politics, to race, or to social questions. I had no clearly thought-out ideology and, in fact, except for a brief commitment to Christianity between the ages of 14 and 18, had never concerned myself with ideological matters.

During World War II, I was far too young to understand or even pay attention to the issues involved in that most decisive political event of the century. Not even the incessant barrage of morale-boosting war movies and other jingoistic propaganda (produced, incidentally, by the same tribe which during the Korean and Vietnam wars worked equally hard to undermine American morale) had any effect on me; I was so deeply into science fiction that I seldom came up for air.

When I reached adolescence I tapered off a bit on my science fiction reading (I have long since given it up altogether), but then my after-school time was filled up with the real thing: science. I had a laboratory in my bedroom, and I spent all the money I earned mowing lawns and delivering newspapers to buy chemicals and apparatus.

After an unfortunate accident sent a young friend to the hospital with bad second- and third-degree burns and set my bedroom curtains afire, my laboratory was banished to the garage, but my interest was unabated. My boyhood dream, a decade before Sputnik I, was space travel and extraterrestrial exploration.

Even after I was packed off to military school at the age of 15, my interests continued to be devoted almost wholly to science. I waited as eagerly each month for the arrival of my Scientific American as I had previously waited for the appearance on the newsstands of Planet Stories. I finagled an afternoon job cleaning up the stockroom of the chemistry lab at military school, which was a mess from years of inattention by uninterested teachers, and I used the opportunity to continue my self-education in matters scientific.

When I became an undergraduate at Rice University (at that time Rice Institute) in Houston, Texas, I chose physics and mathematics as my major and minor courses of study. Anyone who has not himself majored in physics will have difficulty in appreciating what that means, in terms of the degree of commitment and the amount of intellectual effort required. While the English majors and sociology majors concerned themselves with campus politics, panty raids, beer parties, and dormitory bull sessions, I and the other physics majors puzzled out solutions to Laplace's equation and sweated over the calculation of particle trajectories.

I do not mean to imply that there was no time left for sex, beer, and whatever else undergraduates concern themselves with, but only that, relatively speaking, physics majors were obliged to indulge themselves in these pleasures on the run. And this was much more the case when I became a graduate student, first at Caltech and later at the University of Colorado. There simply were not enough hours in the day, or days in the week, to do the amount of studying required and to worry very much about politics and other extracurricular matters at the same time.

Being a physics graduate student really is a totally absorbing occupation, and I was one most of the time between the ages of 21 and 29, a period in the lives of most young intellectuals when they are doing a lot of thinking about — or, at least, are very much aware of — the political and social issues of the day. But for me, any time not devoted to physics during this period was spent in frenetic physical activity: chasing girls, skiing, flying, sailing, mountain climbing, shooting.

Toward the end of my graduate studies there wasn't even time for physical recreation, and I often slept on a folding cot beside the electromagnet in my laboratory when I finished the day's work, long after midnight.

Thus, when, just before my 29th birthday, I became an assistant professor of physics at Oregon State University, I was, one might say, an ideological virgin. And I managed to keep my virginity for another year, because it took me that long to set up a new laboratory, gain confidence in my ability to teach the courses (especially the graduate courses) I was assigned, and to "settle in."

Then, for the first time in my adult life, I had time to notice what was going on in the world around me and to reflect on it. And in 1963 there was a lot to notice and reflect on. It was then that the "civil rights" revolution was first coming out of the closet, and there were sit-ins, "freedom" marches, and other integration-directed media events practically every day.

There were no major riots or confrontations in Corvallis, Oregon, where I was teaching, but even on the Oregon State University campus one could see a microcosm of the racial ferment taking place elsewhere. There were several interracial couples on the faculty and the usual brainless liberal blather about racial matters in the student newspaper.

As the turmoil grew, it became more and more difficult to remain a disinterested observer. It was clearly necessary for every responsible adult to try to understand the implications of this "civil rights" thing and then take a position. But I had no ground on which to stand.

I had no regional prejudices, having lived in nine different states, four of them in the South and five outside. I had had very little previous experience with non-Whites and had not thought much about them one way or the other. If anything, I was inclined toward the liberal position on the race question.

I can remember one dormitory bull session as an undergraduate, in which I had supported the right of a person to marry or cohabit with anyone who would have him, Black or White.

And at military school I had once indignantly declined an invitation to accompany a carload of my classmates on a "coon conking" excursion into the local "nigger town." This was a sport that consisted of driving along close to the curb and poking a closet pole out the car window to knock down Blacks on the sidewalk. I strongly felt that, as long as Blacks were minding their own business, no one had a right to bother them.

I believe that I could have been properly categorized as a libertarian rather than a liberal, but mine was no by means a dogmatic libertarianism, merely a vague feeling that people should be left alone as much as possible, and that society should not attempt to regulate their lives or impose the prevailing standards on them. This was consistent with the resentment I had felt as a teenager when I was obliged to apply for a social security card and, later, when I had to fill out my first Form 1040.

Libertarianism, however, provided no answers to the race question. On the one hand, I felt Blacks should be allowed to do whatever they wanted, without hindrance or harassment. But I also felt that Whites who did not want to eat with them or hire them or send their children to school with them should not be forced to do so. How could one reconcile the "rights" being demanded for Blacks with the rights of Whites?

I had no answer, and the media did not provide one I could accept. It was clear that they were solidly on the side of the Blacks and were using every trick in their propaganda book to emotionally sway the public to their position. Certainly the spectacle of overweight White housewives, their hair in curlers and their puffy faces distorted with hate, screaming obscenities at small Black children as they got off a school bus, was hardly one to win sympathy for the segregationists, and the scorn in the voices of the news commentators as the TV cameras gloatingly lingered on such scenes left little doubt in the minds of TV viewers across the nation that opposition to the "civil rights" movement was a disreputable position.

Why, I wondered, did the media always choose the least articulate segregationist available when they wanted to screen an interview, and why did they so seldom show the seamy side of the integration movement?

And I could hardly help noticing that the shrillest and pushiest of those demanding "equality now" for Blacks, both on the Oregon State campus and in the media, were not Blacks but members of another minority group — which raised, for the first time in my life, the Jewish question. I had no answer to that question either.

Talking to my colleagues cast little new light on these issues, which I felt were extremely important. On the one hand were the liberals, whose dogmatic narrow-mindedness precluded any rational discussion on matters which touched the very heart of liberalism.

To them the doctrine of universal human equality was simply beyond questioning. Blacks were biologically equal to Whites, they believed, and the only things which kept them from being socially equal were "injustice" and "oppression," which must be swept away — at any cost.Actually, I wasn't interested in debating the question of whether Blacks are inherently equal to Whites. If my time in military school had taught me anything, it was that the notion of inherent human equality is utterly false.

Such a notion could only be maintained by someone who had never undergone the experience, as I had, of being cooped up in close quarters with 500 other human beings, day and night, for two years. I got to know my schoolmates (all of whom were White) rather more intimately than the average person ever gets to know anyone, and it was abundantly clear to me that they differed enormously in inherent quality. Some of my classmates were boys of intelligence, character, and sensitivity; others were the scum of the earth; and the rest were at various points in between.

Being aware of the differences in biological quality which existed among Whites, I was not inclined to accept the liberals' blanket assertion that Blacks were "equal" to Whites. But whether the average intelligence of Blacks was approximately the same as that of Whites, or whether the races were similar in some other narrowly defined respect, was not the salient question. Blacks were manifestly different from Whites, and the question to be answered, it seemed to me, was what was the proper relationship to be sought between the two races?Should it be segregation, as those puffy-faced, shrieking women demanded; or should it be total and immediate integration, as the media spokesmen insisted; or should it be some third way? And what conclusions were to be drawn from the pre-eminent role of the Jews in the affair?

My conservative colleagues were of no more help in resolving these questions than the liberals. There were a few who, behind closed doors, would whisper angrily to me, "The Jews are the ones behind this 'civil rights' agitation."

But why? There was no coherent answer. And what should a responsible person do, other than whisper angrily? Again, the conservatives had no answer.

In seeking a conservative solution, I went so far as to attend several meetings of a local chapter of the John Birch Society. According to the Birchers, all the "civil rights" uproar was part of a communist program for taking over the country. Perhaps so, but that answer begged my basic question on race.

I quickly found out that the two topics on which I had wanted an intelligent discussion — race and the Jews — were precisely the two topics Birch Society members were forbidden to discuss, on pain of expulsion. When I persisted in my questions, I was given a pamphlet which explained that anyone who raised these questions at a Birch Society meeting was almost certainly a "neutralizer" — a communist agent whose role was to "neutralize" the Birch Society by distracting it from its anti-communist mission with questions about race and the Jews.

Conservatives, I discovered, are just as narrow-minded and bigoted, on the average, as liberals. I also came to the sad realization that, whatever may have been true of universities in ages past, they can hardly be considered today to be communities of scholars, "founded in freedom for research to sober, fearless pursuit of truth, beauty, righteousness and to all high emprise consecrated," to quote the words on my Rice diploma. They are largely communities of timeservers, going through the motions of scholarship.

I suspect that the percentage of free spirits and thinkers unbound by convention may still be somewhat higher on the average American university campus than in the average redneck bar, but not drastically so. The cliches are different, but the primal reek of herd instinct is about as strong in both places.

I turned to the university library for answers. I began reading voraciously in subjects to which my scientific specialization had previously forced me to give short shrift, especially history. My reading was quite random at first: a book on the Civil War and the problems of the Reconstruction Era, followed by Gibbon, then by a treatment of the Second World War, and then by a survey of European prehistory.

Eventually, however, I was able to synthesize an overview of history which yielded several fundamental insights, the most important of which concerned the biological basis of history and of human culture. I began to understand that history is not just a succession of political events and cultural developments; it is the record of various human groups in their struggle to survive and evolve, of their interactions and conflicts.

The course which the history of any one human group follows is influenced by many factors, but the most important and basic of these factors is the specific racial character of the groups. Thus, the histories of Negroes, of Chinamen, and of Whites, though subject to the effects of differing environments and differing cultural preconditions, are profoundly different primarily because the groups these historians describe are profoundly different biologically. And the differences in cultural preconditions themselves are, in most cases, primarily a product of biological differences also.

Such a conclusion may seem self-evident once it is recognized, but, like many other things which, perhaps, ought to be self-evident, it has managed to escape the attention of a great many people — including many who write history textbooks. For me it was a great revelation which changed the way in which I saw the world around me thenceforth.

Insight into the Jewish question came more slowly — not as a revelation, but as a gradual increase in understanding of Jewish behavior and Jewish thinking. But even before I felt I had a fairly complete understanding of the Jewish role in American life, I realized that it was a very important role, which had to be understood if anything else was to make sense.

Two years of intensive and extensive study of history, of the biology of race, of Jewish affairs, and of related topics certainly increased my understanding. But it did not provide the answer I was seeking: How should I respond to the "civil rights" offensive?

I did not realize it at the time, but no amount of study could have provided me an answer, for that involved a question of values. There are two types of knowledge: that which comes from a study of the external world, and that which comes from the soul. But it was another 10 years before I finally came to understand clearly the difference between objective and subjective knowledge and the way in which they are related.

In 1965 all I knew was that there was a massive, well-organized effort afoot to bring about profound and irreversible changes in the racial character of the American population, and I felt that these changes would be for the worse and must, therefore, be opposed. I could not, at that time, say why I felt the way I did, nor did I have any clear idea as to what I should do to implement my feelings.

I was, in other words, still lacking an ideological basis for action: a self-consistent set of values, principles, and goals from which I could derive a correct position on any issue which might arise and which would serve as a guide for proper action. I was groping intuitively for a goal without yet understanding the nature of intuition.

I tried to orient my own feelings relative to those of my colleagues with whom I had discussed the race issue. The liberals seemed to have an ideology of sorts, although it didn't make good sense to me, while the conservatives were quite short on ideology.

When I brushed aside the cliches and looked for their ultimate goals, it seemed to me that for the liberals it was self-annihilation, while for the conservatives it was self-preservation, in the narrowest sense. As for me, it was to do what I was created to do — although I could not have expressed it that way at that time.

But what to do and how to do it — that, I still did not know. I only knew that I must do something; I could not continue to be merely a spectator indefinitely, while events cried out daily for action.

I decided to become a writer.

It seemed to me that if I could write a book which would explain the conclusions I had reached about the racial basis of history and about the long-range historical implications of the present drift toward racial mixing in the United States, other persons could be reached, persuaded, and organized into some sort of force capable of acting effectively in the political arena.

With this objective in mind, I left my faculty position for one with a large corporation in Connecticut. By doing so I not only gave myself more free time for writing, but I also doubled my salary. In addition, I gained staff privileges in the Yale University library, one of the largest and best in the country.

Before I even began my book, however, I made the discovery that I was not the first person to set foot on that trail. I was amazed to find dozens of books in the Yale library written by others who had reached conclusions similar to my own. Most of the books were intelligently written — better books than I felt I could write myself, at the time — and several had been put out by major publishers.

And there they sat, some since the early years of this century, gathering dust on library shelves, influencing no one. That realization considerably dampened my enthusiasm for writing a book.

It also called my attention to a problem I had not seriously considered before then: the problem of motivating people. I had naively assumed that the task I had taken on was merely one of persuasion — of convincing people that my view of events was correct — and that, once convinced, they would not hesitate to act.

Perhaps I had fallen into the common error of judging others by myself, or perhaps I had foolishly put too much faith in the old Christian saw, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." In any event, it was becoming clear that the truth alone was not enough. One must not only know the truth, but one must then have the will to act on it — and will, it seemed, was much more the missing ingredient than truth.

On the matter of understanding the motivation — or lack thereof — of my fellow men, I had no flashes of revelation; it took me an embarrassingly long time to piece the picture together. Meanwhile, I wasted three precious years editing and publishing an ivory-tower ideological quarterly.

The understanding which gradually emerged is what may fairly be said to have radicalized me — to have convinced me that radical ends can only be attained by radical means. That conviction was the product of my interactions with a large number of individuals over a period of several years. I shall not attempt to relate those interactions in chronological order but shall merely describe a few which epitomize the others.

In early 1968 I applied for and obtained a Federal license to deal in firearms. I then went into the mail-order gun business. My purpose was not only to supplement my scanty income, but also to attract the attention of those persons most likely to be responsive to my ideological message.

For this latter purpose I had advertising flyers printed and distributed which described the firearms I was offering for sale as "Negro control equipment." The mass media jumped for the bait. Headlines such as "Extreme Rightists Arming for Race War" appeared in newspapers all over America and were even picked up by a number of European papers.

I became something of a celebrity, and my gun business thrived — until the Federal gun control law of 1968 went into effect and virtually outlawed mail-order sales of firearms.

The people with whom I came in contact as a result of this little experiment fell into several categories. First, there were the primitives, who liked to talk about doing violent and bloody things but who had neither the patience nor the understanding for the long, unexciting preparatory work which must be done first if violence is to be effective.

The thinking of the primitives was essentially conservative. Underneath the braggadocio ("I'm gonna kill me a nigger with this gun") was a very limited, defensive conception of things. The time might come, at a very late stage, where such people could be helpful — but I realized they were not what I was looking for.

Then there were the non-primitive conservatives. They didn't brag about any anticipated mayhem, but their motivation was essentially that of the primitives, and their imagination was just as limited. They had vague ideas of defending themselves from lawless Blacks, of shooting rioters in their neighborhoods — nothing more. Their only concern was protecting themselves and their property. Cooperative action to achieve longer-range goals did not interest them.

And there were the business and professional types — successful, well-to-do men, some of them members of the Establishment. I managed to get myself invited to a few Washington cocktail parties, thinking that the support of such people would be invaluable in organizing the sort of effort I had in mind.

I found a common pattern at these parties. There was a superficial receptiveness to what I had to say. People were ready to joke about Blacks. They didn't approve of racial mixing, and they detested Jews. They agreed heartily with my assertion that it was necessary to actively oppose the efforts of the controlled media, the churches, and the Federal government to force Whites and Blacks to mix.

That is, they agreed until it began dawning on them that what I was saying was not just idle cocktail chatter, but that I was deadly serious. Then they became uneasy. And when I hinted that anyone who agreed with me had an obligation to become involved in a common effort, their uneasiness turned to something close to panic.

On more than one occasion I had the experience of having someone introduced to me who would say something like, "I read the articles in the Washington Post about your 'Negro control equipment.' Keep it up; give 'em hell."

I would respond by mentioning that I had just published a pamphlet on the controlled press in America and that I would mail him a copy. The reaction would invariably be, "Oh, no, don't do that! They check the mail, you know. In my position, I can't afford to get involved. I'm sure you understand!"

Yes, I understood — or, at least, I was beginning to. I understood that American society, like a dead fish, is rotting from the head down. The Gentile Establishment in this country is totally corrupt and will never act from other than narrow self-interest. Its members are more to blame than the Jews for America's racial problems, because they not only have had the power to oppose the Jews' schemes, but, unlike the masses, they have understood all along what the Jews have been up to.

It is not just their greed which manifests their corruption; it is also their abject cowardice. After all, they are racists, of sorts. Some will even support an effort to oppose racial mixing — if they can be convinced that it is completely safe.

That means that there must not only be no danger to their persons, their incomes, or their investments, but also no danger of social embarrassment, no danger of being caught in a breach of the etiquette of their class. Raising one's voice in public is such a breach of etiquette. So is using plain language about race, which everyone can understand.

Jesus said it a long time ago, and he was absolutely correct: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven."

There was little danger of my becoming rich by following the course I had chosen, but my experiences with wealthy conservatives convinced me that I should take no chance that I might, at some future date, be influenced by concern for material possessions. I divested myself of the property I had left — including my automobile and my bank account — and took a vow of poverty. From then on I would never own more then the clothes on my back, the few essentials of my trade, and pocket money.

I talked to several retired military officers. They did not display as much cowardice or greed as the Establishment types, but they were limited in other ways. They had great difficulty in thinking or acting outside the conventions of their caste. I had not expected it, but I found a lot of the same squeamishness conservatives had shown when I talked about the grim realities of our situation and of the necessity of going to the roots of the problem and using radical surgery.

One general principle I learned is that people are fairly predictable — almost mechanical, one might say. They are very strongly constrained, not only in the type of things they do but also in what they are able to think about, by their social circumstances and backgrounds. It is very difficult for them to cope with events which require thinking and acting outside their well-worn ruts. Among adults there are few exception to this rule, regardless of social position or inherent intelligence.

It applies not only to the deeply conservative middle class and to the amoral men of the Establishment, but also to the masses. People who think that the so-called "common people" will spontaneously rise up and make an end of their tormentors when economic conditions become bad enough or when school busing or some other outrage is carried a bit further are just as mistaken as those who nurse the forlorn hope that the Whites of the Establishment will one day respond to a twinge of racial loyalty.

Some profess to see hope for the future in the redneck bars of the nation, in the motorcycle gangs, even among the dropped-out youths of the drug culture, because of their "healthy, vital, elemental racism," as one dreamer expressed it. Yes, there is elemental racism there, but there is also elemental stupidity and apathy. Just look at what the common people keep voting for — and listen to their reasons for voting.

The masses, just like the Establishment, will never do spontaneously what needs to be done. They can act properly only when they are regimented and guided every step of the way. Democracy is a huge part of our present problem, and it will certainly not be a part of the cure.

That may be a difficult conclusion for many readers to accept. It is a radical conclusion. It took me years to accept it, but eventually I could no longer avoid it.

Actually, my narrative oversimplifies the process which led to my becoming a radical. There were two separate intellectual developments involved, which were so closely interconnected that it would be very difficult to separate them here. One led to my understanding the necessity of radical ends; the other, the necessity of radical means.

The first development was complete when I understood the futility of conservatism; the second when I understood the uselessness of conservatives.

By conservatism I mean the seeking of limited goals — economic, political, social, or racial — as ends in themselves. Limited goals only make sense, in the long run, when they are stepping-stones on the way to an all-encompassing goal.

History is a dynamic, unstoppable, all-encompassing process. One cannot hold it back, but one can, sometimes, influence its course. But when one changes the course of history, one changes it for all time and for all things, whether one wants that or not. The radical understands that and accepts it; the conservative does not.

When I speak of radical means, I do not intend to evoke an image of a wild-eyed bomb-thrower. For the purpose of this narrative, radical means refers primarily to people, to participants in the process of bringing about historical change, and not so much to any particular type of tactics.

That is, there was a time, even after I had begun thinking in terms of radical ends, when I still thought in terms of working toward them with the help of people whose outlook was essentially conservative. I have already described how I became disabused of this idea.

I finally came to realize that I must seek other men and women who were capable of sharing my whole vision of what the world could become — not just one small aspect or another of that vision. I must seek men and women who understand and accept that our proper goal is not a happier or more prosperous life for ourselves or even for our children. Nor is it to save America, or even Western civilization.

What must be saved is the gene pool of our race. If we are able to do that, everything else will eventually be achieved. If we fail to do that, everything will ultimately be lost.

The acceptance of that goal, and the ability to achieve satisfaction by devoting one's life to its furtherance, are the two most important criteria by which I judge potential co-workers.

There is more, of course. There is an understanding of why our goal is all that ultimately matters. There is the ability to fit that goal into the larger picture of the nature of reality and of man's place and purpose in that reality. But that is another story.

Let it suffice to say here, in conclusion, that, despite the long and painful process through which I had to pass in becoming radicalized, fighting it every step of the way, the process seems to have been easier for other people, especially those born since the Second World War. This is important, because it means that there is a growing, maturing supply of the very best human material with an understanding of what must be done.

It is from this reservoir that the cadres of the National Alliance are now being recruited.


Old September 6th, 2015 #29
White Dragon
Senior Member
White Dragon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,928
White Dragon

Friday September 11 would of been Dr. William Pierce's birthday.

“I had an awareness of my mortality from a very early age,” he told me, “and so it seemed to me that I shouldn’t waste my life doing things that weren’t truly important.”

Last edited by White Dragon; September 11th, 2015 at 12:58 PM.
Old May 13th, 2017 #30
Robbie Key
Senior Member
Robbie Key's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,962
Robbie Key

Where do you download his radio shows these days? It is not on any more.
Old May 14th, 2017 #31
Emily Henderson
Intellijintly Dezined
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Pre-Rapture, USA ⚛️
Posts: 3,871
Emily Henderson
Default This blog has some archived shows

Originally Posted by Robbie Key View Post
Where do you download his radio shows these days? It is not on any more.
"Inquiry and doubt are essential checks against deception."--Richard Carrier
Old May 14th, 2017 #32
Randolph Dilloway
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,165

Originally Posted by Robbie Key View Post
Where do you download his radio shows these days? It is not on any more.
You can thank Willy Williams for that. In his last four Willy Alliance Bulletins, he tells his fan club that his number one preoccupation this year, after legally terrorizing people, is shutting down all "unauthorized" publications of Dr. Pierce's works. Willy wants to be the sole arbiter of Dr. Pierce's legacy.

There still is an excellent 1,500+ page PDF transcript of all of Dr. Pierce's ADV out there. Download it while you can.
Old August 28th, 2018 #33
Senior Member
Tiwaz's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Europa, Serbia
Posts: 651
Default Lest we forget - Dr. William L. Pierce

Lest we forget - Dr. William L. Pierce

September 11. 2002.
What he said:
What is Racism?
by Dr. William L. Pierce
TODAY LET'S TALK about "racism" and related matters. There's hardly a subject the average White person is more
uptight about, hardly a subject that makes him more uncomfortable. Fifty or 60 years ago people were really uptight
about sex. Very few people could talk about it honestly and openly and comfortably. It embarrassed them. Whenever the
subject came up people used all sorts of euphemisms and evasions to avoid having to mention things or use words that
made them squirm and blush, things that they just couldn't deal with straightforwardly. In polite conversation one could
not even use the word leg in talking about a woman, for example. It was too risqué, bordering on the pornographic,
because of the mental associations it evoked.
Why was that? Why did talking about sex make us uncomfortable? Well, of course, it was because sex was a taboo
subject. There were a lot of social and religious prohibitions and restrictions associated with sex, and these prohibitions
conflicted with our natural urges. We were taught that following these natural urges was sinful, and that terrible things
would happen to us if we did. The result was that we felt guilty about our natural urges. To avoid the very unpleasant
feeling of guilt, we tried to avoid the subject of sex. We swept it under the rug and tried not to think about it.
That's the way it is with the subject of race today. Just as we were conditioned by religious teachings 50 or 60 years ago
to feel guilty about our natural sexual inclinations, today we are conditioned -- primarily by the controlled mass media -- to
feel guilty about our natural racial inclinations. We are conditioned to believe that they are sinful.
And what are our natural racial inclinations? We can get a pretty good answer by looking at the way we behaved and
wrote and talked back in the era before race became a taboo subject, back in the time when we could still talk about it
without feeling any pangs of guilt or embarrassment -- back in the early part of this century, say. At that time we accepted
the fact that people of a particular race preferred to live and work and play with other people like themselves. We
certainly preferred the company of people of our own race, and that also was true of other races. We were often curious
about or interested in the racial characteristics, the behavior, the lifestyles, the culture, and the histories of other races.
We admired Japanese samurai swords and Chinese ceramic art, the Eskimo kayak, Hindu mythology, Mexican temples.
In youth organizations like the Boy Scouts we studied the lore of the American Indians and tried to emulate their superb
skills as stone-age hunters and woodsmen. Wherever another race had some real accomplishment, we were ready to
study that accomplishment and to give credit where credit was due.
But at the same time we retained our feeling of separateness and exclusiveness and a pride in our own European
culture, our own racial characteristics, our own history. We did not feel it necessary to apologize for teaching the history
of our own race in our schools -- that is, European history -- and for not teaching Japanese history, say, or Tibetan
history, except, of course, to those scholars in our universities who were studying exotic cultures. Especially, we did not
feel the slightest inclination to invent a false Black history in order to magnify the self-esteem of young Blacks or to
persuade young Whites that Blacks were their cultural equals.
Did we feel that our race is superior to other races? In general, yes -- but we weren't uptight about it, just realistic. That
is, we acknowledged without the slightest feeling of envy or resentment that other races could do some things better than
we could: Blacks, for example, could do work in a hot, humid environment that would kill a White man. And their peculiar
skeletal and muscular structure made them better sprinters and jumpers, on the average, while their relatively thick skulls
and long arms gave them an advantage at boxing.
But we knew what we were especially good at, and we tended to value those things most highly. Someone recruiting for
a basketball team, of course, would have different standards and might very well look at Blacks as a superior race. That
didn't bother us. We were confident in our role as the pacesetters for everyone else, as the planet's preeminent problem
solvers and civilization builders, as the best thinkers and doers. And, of course, we liked our poetry, our art, our music,
and our literature best. In that sense we believed that we had a superior culture and we were a superior race. Superior
by our own standards, of course.
Because of that -- because of our feelings about ourselves and our preference for our own kind and our own culture --
we were all racists by today's standards, of course. We were all White supremacists. But those terms were never used
then. "racism" was never an issue. We just thought and behaved in a way that was natural for us. As long as other races
Nationalist Library Powered by Joomla! Generated: 13 October, 2009, 22:28
didn't get in our way, we felt no hostility toward them. But if they did get in our way, they usually regretted it pretty quickly.
And, of course, other races had pretty much the same attitude we did. They judged things by their standards. The
Chinese believed -- actually still believe -- that they are superior to any foreign devils. Did that offend us in any way? Of
course not. We didn't agree with the Chinese, of course, but as long as everyone stayed on his own turf, we were able to
get along reasonably well. The only time there was conflict between the races was when they were forced to occupy the
same turf. When that happened there always was conflict and hostility.
When greedy businessmen brought shiploads of Chinese coolies to this country to provide cheap labor for building
railroads, so they wouldn't have to pay the prevailing wage rate to White workers, there was hostility between Whites and
A much greater conflict was caused by importing African slaves to America. Profit-hungry slave merchants brought
millions of them into this country and gave plantation owners an offer they couldn't refuse. The economic conditions of
the 18th century made the use of slave labor very profitable. But the use of Black slaves by wealthy White landowners
left small White farmers and craftsmen in the southern United States at a great disadvantage, with resultant hostility and
conflict. After the slaves were freed and turned loose in White society, the conflict between Blacks and Whites became
much, much worse, of course.
The conflict between the races eventually was limited by the practices of segregation, which established, in essence,
separate societies in the United States for Whites and for Blacks. Whites lived in one part of town; Blacks in another.
Whites went to White schools; Blacks to Black schools. There were White recreational areas and Black recreational
areas, White restaurants and Black restaurants. The races mixed as little as they could, and each race was able to
maintain its own standards and its own culture, more or less. In most cases the institutions of segregation were sanctified
by law. Wherever there was a sizable population of Blacks, for example, there were laws against miscegenation.
Segregation was not really an ideal solution for the long term, for either race, but in the short term it was infinitely better
than racial mixing. The only good long term solution would have been complete geographical separation, in this case by
repatriating freed slaves back to Africa and Chinese coolies back to China. But economic considerations -- plus the
regrettable shortsightedness which characterizes public policy in a democracy -- resulted in repatriation being put on the
back burner.
And so we lived with segregation as best we could, despite its shortcomings. We still had our turf and our society, and
Blacks had theirs. In our society most of us could still talk about our own race and about other races without becoming
embarrassed or feeling guilty. There was, of course, a great difference between the cultural and economic levels of White
society and those of Black society. Standards in Black schools were far below those in White schools; Black incomes
were lower; Black neighborhoods were poorer, dirtier, and more violent. A few Blacks overcame these conditions and
prospered, but most lived rather squalidly.
A few Whites -- and others -- with extra time on their hands patronized the Blacks, even in those days before "racism"
became a cause celebre, and attributed Black ignorance and poverty to White "oppression." Of course, it was nothing of
the sort. The great majority of Whites did not concern themselves at all with Blacks and certainly wasted no time in trying
to oppress them. Most Whites did not care what Blacks did, so long as they did it among themselves and did not threaten
Whites. One merely had to look at the vastly greater difference which existed between the levels of civilization in Europe
and in Black Africa to understand that the difference between the levels of White and Black society in America was
merely a reflection of the difference in racial quality, and that Blacks in America would be living at an even lower level
were it not for the benefits bestowed on them by their proximity to White society.
Nevertheless, the do-gooders persisted in blaming White society for the shortcomings of Black society, though without
making much of an impact on White society. During the 1920s and 1930s the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People -- the NAACP -- lobbied for an end to segregation. Interestingly enough, all the presidents of the
NAACP during this period were Jews, not Blacks, and the organization also received nearly all its financing from Jews. It
was really the Second World War that changed things. The enormous buildup of wartime industry in America changed
the composition of the U.S. work force radically. With millions of White males in uniform, women and Blacks were
recruited into the factory work force in unprecedented numbers. The war had the net effect of moving large numbers of
Blacks from rural areas into the cities and giving them more money than they had ever had before. Much more important
was the psychological impact of the war. The war propagandists in America painted the war as a crusade for democracy
and equality. We were told that the Germans believed themselves a "master race." It was very wicked for any one group
of people to believe that they were superior to any other group, we were told, over and over again. Well, after we had
killed millions of our fellow Europeans and had lost 300,000 of our own soldiers proving that the Germans were not a
"master race" after all, it was much easier for the propagandists of the controlled media to persuade us that Whites and
Blacks were innately equal, and that the lower socioeconomic level of Blacks therefore must be our fault. If Blacks were
ignorant and poor, we had made them that way. It was segregation that was holding them down. The result was White
guilt: it first began to take hold in the White consciousness in the 1950s.
Nationalist Library Powered by Joomla! Generated: 13 October, 2009, 22:28
Television became a powerful, new weapon in the hands of the guilt-mongers. We were treated to television spectacles
of inoffensive, well-dressed Blacks sitting quietly in White cafés, while White waitresses refused to serve them and White
patrons jeered them. We saw Blacks being pulled off buses and beaten with baseball bats by White Klansmen. We saw
police dogs and club-swinging White policemen attacking Black so-called "freedom marchers" in Alabama. I don't mean
to say that scenes such as these were typical of the so-called "civil rights" demonstrations of the 1950s and 1960s. But
they did happen occasionally. White working-class people, who were least able to protect themselves from the Black
assault on White jobs, White neighborhoods, and White schools during the 1950s and 1960s, sometimes reacted in an
intemperate and undignified way. Sometimes they even reacted violently. Whenever they did, the cameras of the
controlled media were there to record it. And these few scenes were cleverly edited, put in a context carefully selected to
appeal to the innate White sense of propriety and fairness, and then broadcast over and over and over again. The result
was more White guilt -- as intended.
By skilfully using selected scenes of White resistance to racial integration which were embarrassing to most White
viewers, the controllers of the media were gradually able to make the whole idea of resistance to racial integration
embarrassing to most White people. And then the media gave a name to White resistance to integration: Racism. And by
repeatedly invoking this name in conjunction with scenes and actions and ideas which already had been made
embarrassing, the name itself, the word itself, acquired the power to cause pangs of embarrassment and guilt -- exactly
as the sound of the dinner bell by itself caused Pavlov's dogs to salivate. The media had established a conditioned
reflexive reaction to the word "racism." The very word itself now is sufficient to cause the trendiest among us to turn pale
and run for cover, while it makes even fairly rugged individualists uncomfortable.
Now, this brief history of "racism" really is a gross over-simplification. The actual process was much more complicated
and involved many details which we have insufficient time to describe today. The schools, for example, were recruited
into the conditioning program. The content of school curricula was falsified in order to prevent White students from
understanding the rationale for segregation in America -- or more generally, for the separation of races anywhere in the
world. At the same time, history courses were de-Europeanized and larded with all sorts of imaginary accomplishments
of non-Whites. The aim of all of this was to make it seem to White students that any effort to maintain a White society
was not only irrational but also unfair.
The only thing which has helped a few White students resist this teaching has been the actual, physical presence of real
Blacks in their schools, so that they could see the glaring contradiction between the theory of racial equality and reality.
One of the consequences of this generally very successful program of conditioning by the controlled media, this program
of brainwashing, has been to make it very difficult to discuss racial matters rationally. It's like it must have been trying to
discuss sex rationally among Presbyterians a century ago.
When I'm on television talk shows and I talk about race, I receive really hysterical calls from some people, who just can't
deal with it. And calls from the haters, too -- people who tell me I ought to be killed for being in favor of separation of the
races or for being opposed to miscegenation. And these people who scream out hatred and obscenities at me for daring
to have Politically Incorrect opinions on race are White people -- White people who have been conditioned by the
controlled media to react that way.
But ordinary people used to get just as upset about sex a hundred years ago. They used to hate, despise, and even
want to kill people who had unconventional ideas about sex -- and I'm not talking about child molesters or homosexuals;
I'm talking about healthy heterosexuals who simply weren't as rigidly conventional in their ideas or practices as the rest of
the population. Margaret Sanger, the pioneer of birth-control education in America, was thrown into prison for her views
in 1917. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church, scandalized conventional Christians by taking a number of
wives, and he was lynched -- murdered -- by a mob in Illinois in 1844.
Nevertheless, race is something we must think about and talk about rationally and honestly. We must not be
embarrassed by it. We must not feel guilty about it. We must understand that wanting to live and work with people of our
own kind is a natural, healthy feeling that we are born with. Nature gave us this feeling so that we could evolve as a race,
so that we could develop special characteristics and abilities, which set us apart from every other race. This feeling, this
preference for our own kind, is essential for our continued survival. What is unnatural and destructive and truly hateful is
enforced "multiculturalism," as it's called, enforced "diversity." I will conclude today by pointing out that our natural feeling
about race isn't the only thing the brainwashers of the controlled media have worked hard to develop into a conditioned,
reflexive guilt-and-fear mechanism. They've worked nearly as hard to confuse our natural understanding of the
differences between men and women. When I say in public, as I often do, that the natural role for a man is that of
provider and protector, and the natural role for a woman is that of a nurturer, I am subjected to the same kind of
hysterical and hate-filled attacks as when I talk about race.
The media, the Jews, the egalitarians are intent on obscuring all distinctions, all structure in our society, all standards.
We must resist their whole campaign of enforced Political Correctness. But most of all we must resist their effort to
condition our thinking about race. We can survive feminism, no matter how neurotic and unhappy it may make us. We
can survive other forms of egalitarianism, no matter how socially destructive they are.
Nationalist Library Powered by Joomla! Generated: 13 October, 2009, 22:28
But we cannot survive much longer unless we return to honesty in dealing with race.
By Way of Deception Thou Shalt Do War
by Dr. William L. Pierce
THE MOTTO of Israel's spy agency, Mossad, is, according to recently defected Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky: "By way
of deception thou shalt do war." That motto describes more than the modus operandi of the world's most ruthless and
feared organization of professional assassins and espionage agents; it really describes the modus vivendi of an entire
race. It is necessary to understand that fact before one can hope to understand fully the role of the Jews in national and
world affairs.
The concept of a race eternally at war with the rest of the world is alien to us. It is difficult to believe or even to grasp.
When we examine such a concept and begin sifting the evidence it is easy to become confused. On the one hand we
have the Old Testament injunctions to the Hebrews from their tribal god, speaking through their prophets, to annihilate
every Gentile nation over which they gain power:
And thou shalt consume all the peoples which the Lord thy God shall deliver unto thee; thine eye shall not pity them . . .
thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. (Deuteronomy 7:16, 20:16)
Similarly bloodthirsty, explicit injunctions are repeated so often in the Jews' holy books that we can only assume that
they are meant to be taken seriously. The historical evidence suggests that in ancient times the Jews did indeed take
their religion seriously: they were notorious everywhere and at all times as implacable haters of humanity who in turn
were thoroughly despised by every people among whom they lived.
Then on the other hand we have the modern, American Jew in the role of humanitarian, shunning the instruments of war
and urging that all citizens, including himself, be disarmed, in order to make the streets of our cities kinder and gentler.
Not only do the Jews provide the principal impetus to America's gun-control effort, but they are found in the forefront of
every other squishy, do-good movement, from those ostensibly aimed at reducing hostility between the races to those
designed to increase tolerance of homosexuals and their practices.
How are we to make sense of this apparently conflicting evidence?
Is the Jew in the U.S. Congress who cites the rising murder statistics and then demands that the government confiscate
all privately owned firearms trying to deceive us as to his intentions? When he talks peace and disarmament is he really
thinking war against the Gentiles?
And what of the carefully cultivated media image of the Jew as a gentle, inoffensive victim of bigotry, always being
persecuted but never persecuting others? Is that also deception? And even if it is, does it necessarily mean that beneath
the Jew's mask of benevolence and innocence hides the malevolent visage of a cunning predator? Perhaps for every
bloodsucking Jewish swindler like Ivan Boesky or Michael Milken there is a Jewish benefactor of mankind like polio
vaccine developer Jonas Salk, and for every bloody-handed Jewish gangster like Ariel Sharon, Meyer Lansky, or Yitzhak
Shamir there is a Jewish Nobel Peace Prize winner like Menachem Begin, Henry Kissinger -- or the appropriately named
Elie Wiesel.
Or are we also being deceived when the Salks and the Kissingers are held up to us as reasons for not condemning all
Jews for the transgressions of some?
By way of deception thou shalt do war.
Does that injunction mean: "If you must wage war -- if it is impossible to avoid war -- then you stand a better chance of
winning by being tricky"? Or does it mean: "Thou shalt wage war, and thou shalt deceive"?
The answer to this question is important. If it is the former -- if the Jews, as a whole, are not malevolent, if they have
broken with their Old Testament tradition and no longer feel that their racial mission is to destroy all other peoples, but
they merely feel that when forced to defend themselves they are justified in using all means, including deception, then we
may be able to live on the same planet with them, at a distance. We don't have to like them or agree with their policies,
but we can see the possibility, at least, of some sort of peaceful coexistence, once a separation of peoples has been
In seeking the answer we should keep in mind that deception is, in itself, hostile. A policy of systematic deception is
tantamount to a policy of war. If we discover that the Jews (as a whole, not just a few swindlers among them) have been
deceiving us deliberately and systematically over an extended period of time on any matter of substance, then we may
Nationalist Library Powered by Joomla! Generated: 13 October, 2009, 22:28
infer that they regard the relationship between us as one of war, and we should respond accordingly.
The pursuit of this inference may be the only path to an unmuddied answer. After all, how do we know that someone is
waging war against us? If he makes an open declaration of war and then begins shooting and bombing us, the matter is
clear enough. But if, because he always follows a policy of deception, he declares that he is not at war with us and only
has our best interests at heart, we may have difficulty in deciding whether the injury he causes us is deliberate or
Suppose he undertakes courses of action which damage us in ways somewhat less directly than shooting and bombing -
- ways such as bringing hordes of non-Whites across our borders, breaking down the barriers to racial mixing in our
society, encouraging permissiveness, undermining our institutions, promoting cultural bolshevism -- all the while claiming
that he does not regard these things as harmful. If we were a more practical people we might pay less attention to what
the Jew says and more to what he does; we might stop worrying about his motive, judge him on the basis of the effect
his presence has had on us, and then act accordingly.
Unfortunately, there are many who cannot in good conscience take a stand against the Jew without knowing what is in
his heart -- and the Jew is aware of this. We must catch him deliberately lying to us, deceiving us systematically and
massively, in order to infer that his intent is hostile.
That's one reason why the unraveling of the "Holocaust" myth is so important to us -- and why the Jew clings so
desperately to every lie in its fabric.
We should draw some sort of conclusion from the consistency of the Jew's actions. Virtually everything he does is
harmful to us. Without much exaggeration we can say that whenever the Jew takes a stand on a new issue, the proper
position for us is on the other side.
Everyone who has read any Jewish literature -- i.e., literature by Jews about Jews -- has encountered the traditional
Jewish character who whenever he must make a decision about something the goyim have done asks himself: "Is it good
for the Jews?" That's an admirable trait in any person, Jew or Gentile: always being concerned first about the welfare of
his community, of his tribe, of his race. The Jewish author more often than not sprinkles a bit of dissimulation over it,
however, suggesting that it may be unfashionably parochial, but it is excusable on the grounds that the Jews have been
obliged by bitter experience to be wary of anything the Gentile does.
It goes without saying, of course, that the same author would regard it as totally inexcusable for a Gentile to use a
similar criterion: to ask himself about some policy or action of the Jews, "Is it good for the White race, for Gentiles?" Such
a character could only be cast in the role of villain.
And what we never encounter in Jewish literature is a Jewish character weighing a Jewish policy by asking himself: "Is it
bad for the goyim?" Unspoken though it may be, however, it seems that this criterion plays as large a role as the first in
determining Jewish policies. Perhaps to them it is just another way of saying the same thing -- although they are very
careful not to phrase it that way. At least, they have been since the Second World War; before that they sometimes
seemed to think that the goyim couldn't read, and chutzpah got the better of discretion. In 1924, for example, the
prominent Jewish publicist Maurice Samuel, author of a score of serious books on Jewish matters and recipient of
numerous awards from Jewish organizations, wrote in his You Gentiles, a book addressed to his hosts:
We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and
demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to
Even here, however, there is deception, with the will to destroy masked as piety.
Think of the enormous demographic and social changes which have transformed our world since the Second World
War. In 1941 the United States was for all practical purposes a White country. Blacks and other minorities existed, but
they were not seen in White residential areas, White schools, White recreational facilities, or most White workplaces.
They had a negligible influence on the political process, on public morality, and on the national culture. Racial
intermarriage was illegal in most jurisdictions and extremely rare everywhere. America's city streets were safe by night
and by day. There was no drug problem; the use of marijuana, heroin, and other drugs was confined almost entirely to
Blacks and mestizos, in their own, separate communities. Teenage pregnancy (among Whites) was as rare as a public
display of homosexuality. Schools were orderly, disciplined, and safe.
America had its problems, of course. Whites, even when they are in control of their own destiny, are not angels. Greed,
meanness, superstition, and stupidity were reflected in a thousand social and cultural ills. A thoroughly corrupt political
system, inevitable in a democracy, provided the country with its top political leaders and public officials. Blacks and other
Nationalist Library Powered by Joomla! Generated: 13 October, 2009, 22:28
racial minorities, though invisible and powerless, were a festering sore which eventually would have to be dealt with.
The country, however, was still White and gave every indication of staying that way; in the years immediately prior to the
war immigration to the United States was predominantly White, with immigrants from Europe outnumbering those from
Asia and Latin America combined by five to one. America's problems were still soluble and Western civilization was still
viable, still capable of being cleansed and renewed. Furthermore, in Germany a man was showing the race the way to
save itself.
In response to that man's efforts most of the Western world engaged in an all-out war to destroy him, his works, and his
followers. His ideas and teachings became anathema, and the half-century which followed was dedicated to justifying the
slaughter and destruction of the war by promoting the antitheses of those ideas and teachings.
He had taught that the White race is the most progressive race and is inherently superior to the non-White races in its
civilization-building capacity, and so the elevation of the social and economic levels of non-Whites at the expense of
Whites became the premier postwar goal.
He had taught that racial mixing is a crime against Nature, that our race must strive above all else to maintain the
integrity of its gene pool, and so racial mixing became the postwar fashion: schoolchildren were bused to achieve mixing
in the schools, forced housing laws were passed to achieve residential mixing, laws against miscegenation were struck
down everywhere, and the immigration laws were changed to bring a new flood of non-Whites into the country.
He had taught that the building of self-discipline in young people, the strengthening of their will-power and of their ability
for self-control, is the most important task of a nation's educational system, and so in postwar America discipline became
a dirty word, and permissiveness became the norm.
He had taught that, just as races differ in their innate abilities, so also do the individuals within a race, and that a healthy
and progressive society must conform its institutions to this natural inequality among its members. Consequently, in
postwar America egalitarianism became the new religion, and leveling the aim of government. To seek out the best and
brightest, in our schools and elsewhere, and give them the recognition and the special training to enable them to move
upward to positions of leadership -- even to admit the possibility that some were better and brighter than others and
could contribute more to civilization -- became taboo.
He had taught a healthy, complementary relationship between men and women, with the former as providers and
protectors and the latter as nurturers, and the new society he built in Germany was family centered, with laws and
institutions aimed at strengthening the family and helping it to provide a sound environment for healthy children.
Therefore, after his works were destroyed the victors denounced sexual complementarity as "repressive" and brought
women out of the home and into the workforce by the millions, with children relegated to day-care centers. Every sex-role
distinction was officially discouraged or outlawed, even to the point of bringing women into the armed forces on an equal
footing with men. Feminism and homosexuality flourished with governmental protection.
Today we can see the consequences of these postwar policies all around us, and it is a matter of public record that the
Jews have been the primary instigators and propagandists for each of these policies without exception.
They had non-Jewish collaborators in abundance, of course. The legislator primarily responsible for the change in
postwar immigration patterns, the late Jewish Congressman from Brooklyn, Emanuel Celler, for many years chairman of
the House Judiciary Committee, chose as a co-sponsor for his 1965 immigration bill the Gentile Senator from
Massachusetts Edward (Teddy) Kennedy.
The "civil rights" revolutionaries who were organizing "sit-ins" and "freedom rides" during the 1950s and 1960s received
their financing, their legal assistance, and their media support from Jews, but without an utterly corrupt and unprincipled
Gentile collaborator in the form of Lyndon Johnson, first as Senate majority leader (1955–1961) and later as
President (1963–1968.), the series of legislative coups which made the agenda of the revolutionaries the law of
the land would not have come so easily.
Collaboration has come from Blacks as well as Whites. Many of the organizations pushing for legislated "equality"
between Blacks and Whites have been headed by Blacks in recent years. The most venerable of them, the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, was given its first Black president as long ago as 1975, after an
unbroken succession of Jews (although the separate NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which bills itself as
"the legal arm of the civil rights movement," is still strictly kosher, with a Jewish chief).
In no area of endeavor have the Jews had more willing non-Jewish collaborators than in the postwar promotion of
permissiveness. Jews Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin may have been the most flamboyant spokesmen for
permissiveness during the 1960s with their "if it feels good, do it" and "kill your parents" maxims for young Americans, but
dozens of well-known Gentiles were right on their coattails, from "New Age" guru Timothy Leary with his campaign to
popularize LSD and other psychedelic drugs to soft-porn publisher Hugh Hefner and his advocacy of "the Playboy
Nationalist Library Powered by Joomla! Generated: 13 October, 2009, 22:28
It is, after all, hardly the case that Jewry forced its way into America with tanks and machine guns and compelled the
unwilling Aryans to stand by and watch while their civilization was destroyed and their race corrupted by the Semitic
invaders. From the beginning the prey collaborated with the predators at all levels: the primitive Bible-beaters who for
generations have been taught by their own kind that the Jews are "God's Chosen People" and that it's bad luck to cross
them; the jaded, self-indulgent great grandsons and great granddaughters of an earlier generation of hard-headed, hardworking
pioneers and entrepreneurs, eager to be amused and titillated by every new fashion in ideology, art, music, or
lifestyle dangled before them by wordy, alien hucksters; hungry opportunists in business, in education, and in the cultural
establishment, ready to take the part of the obnoxiously pushy but admirably well-organized strangers, once those
strangers had established sufficiently strong beachheads to be able to offer favors in return; and, of course, the
politicians, democracy's inevitable maggots, who are ready to ally themselves with the Devil himself if they think they can
gain a temporary personal advantage by doing so.
It is clear that when cleanup time comes there's as much weeding to be done in our own garden as in any other race's.
An inattentive observer might even conclude that the Jews are no more blameworthy for the bad directions taken by our
society than our own worst elements are; that as opportunists they merely look for ways to turn the weaknesses they find
in us to their own advantage.
Did they push for opening our borders to the Third World because they had a long-range plan to mongrelize us, or were
they merely going along with greedy and irresponsible elements of our own race who wanted to keep the cost of labor
Have they been the principal promoters behind every destructive fashion in painting and music in order to cut us loose
from our cultural moorings, thereby confusing our sense of identity and making us easier prey, or simply because they
have recognized the lack of aesthetic discrimination on the part of our consuming masses and are as eager as the
confidence men of any race to sell the suckers whatever they'll buy?
Do they use their control of the entertainment industry to promote the acceptance -- and in many cases the approval --
of homosexuality, feminism, and interracial sex as a way of softening us up morally and preparing us for slaughter, or are
they simply trying to please and thereby win as customers for their commercial sponsors the more degenerate elements
of our population?
An inattentive observer might be stumped by such questions. A more attentive observer, however, will note the details,
the specifics, as well as the generalities, and he will understand that those details, taken together, are not consistent with
simple opportunism but only with war by way of deception.
Forcing the stream of immigration into America after the Second World War to change from White to Brown and Yellow
has most notably kept the cost of farm labor down, but Jews are not farmers, and it is difficult to see how they could
expect to benefit economically from this change. The influx of non-White immigrants also has kept the cost of certain
other types of labor down -- restaurant workers, unskilled construction workers -- but the connection to any vital Jewish
business interest is tenuous at best.
There can be no doubt that culture distortion has been enormously profitable for Jews. With a controlling economic
interest in every facet of the popular-culture industry from art galleries to music records, tapes, and compact discs, they
make money from nearly every product that the culture-consuming public can be persuaded to buy. And since no one
has ever lost a nickel by underestimating the taste of the public, the deliberate Jewish debasement of art and music is
understandable on the grounds of greed alone. But the specific directions are not.
In the production and promotion of what might be called "consumer music," for example, the one great change which
has taken place since the Second World War has been the ascendancy of African rhythm over European music. Fifty
years ago one could walk into any record store catering to the general public and find 78-rpm phonograph discs with a
number of different types of music: classical, hillbilly (a form of White American folk music known today as "bluegrass"
and subsumed under the more general heading "country and western"), numerous samples of genuine folk music from
Europe, the religious music of the more primitive Christian fundamentalists ("gospel"), and a wide-ranging selection of
"popular" music. The last category contained everything from the songs of Stephen Foster to the vacuous, fluffy stuff of
the musical comedies which were especially popular then.
Jews already had established a strong beachhead in popular music production -- Sigmund Romberg, Richard Rodgers,
Oscar Hammerstein, George Gershwin, Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin -- but, at least, most popular music, even that
composed by Jews, was still based on European forms. Jazz was for all practical purposes the only non-White music
being peddled to White consumers, and it constituted a relatively small minority of the wares -- although the "swing" and
"big band" forms into which jazz evolved took a larger share of the market. Still, much of the available music was White in
form and origin, with classical music still prominently represented.
Nationalist Library Powered by Joomla! Generated: 13 October, 2009, 22:28
By the end of the Second World War jazz-influenced popular music was evolving away from its Black roots into hybrid
forms that most people considered more White than Black. The introduction of the long-playing record, which for the first
time permitted people to listen to an entire symphony without changing records, and of high-fidelity sound systems even
brought about a renewal of public interest in classical music. At this point the people controlling the music industry could
have moved in any of a number of directions. They chose to put their heaviest promotional efforts behind another music
form with Black roots: rock 'n' roll.
Rock also evolved, of course. Today in its many forms, some of which have moved rather far from their Black origins, it
dominates consumer music. And the masters of the industry have begun pushing yet another non-White music form,
more blatantly Negroid than anything heretofore: rap.
Today one must look hard to find even a handful of classical cassettes or compact discs in the music section of a K-Mart
or other consumer emporium. European folk music can be had only from a few specialty stores. The majority of the
music offered to the consuming public is in some significant sense non-White.
Economic democracy might be invoked to explain, at least in part, the displacement of structure by rhythm, as the taste
of the average consumer has become more primitive. But it is clear that deliberate promotion has had much to do with
this trend. Why have the promoters so consistently chosen directions which weaken and dilute the White cultural
Certainly, the feminists, homosexuals, and race-mixers are pleased to see themselves depicted on television and
cinema screens as people of a morally superior sort, as role models for the younger generation of goyim. Perhaps they
even show their appreciation by buying more of the products of the sponsors of Star Trek, True Colors, and other brave,
new television productions. But feminists, queers, and interracial couples still make up only a rather small minority of the
population, despite the best efforts of the media masters. Wouldn't it make better economic sense to cater to the
majority? There are as many approximately normal consumers who feel at least a twinge of disgust when a television
program tries to persuade them that hard-drinking, hard-swearing female soldiers or cops are "normal" as there are bulldykes
who will run out and buy the sponsor's brand of beer. And there certainly must be more healthy viewers who
seethe with suppressed rage when they see a White woman kissing a Black man on the screen than there are avantgarde
sickos who applaud such an abomination.
No, opportunism does not explain the Jews' destructiveness. There is no doubt that they are opportunists. But their
opportunism is too consistently destructive. They have too inerrant an instinct for what will be bad for the goyim.
Can their behavior be explained in terms of an alien brand of idealism -- an idealism which evolved in the marketplaces
and bazaars of the Middle East over the last five thousand years and is natural for them, but which leads to disaster
when applied to European society and institutions? Was their support for communism from the middle of the last century
up until its recent collapse really based on their sympathy for the oppressed proletariat and their desire for social and
economic justice, as they claim? They themselves have been oppressed, they say, and so they have a natural sympathy
for the underdog. They will tell you that the reason they promote feminism, argue for the acceptance of homosexuals,
and demand the integration of Blacks into every facet of our lives is that their religion requires it of them; the ethics of
Judaism is egalitarian, and it specifies that each man be judged only by his or her character.
Undoubtedly there have been naive, starry-eyed idealists among communism's Gentile propagandists -- at least, in
those countries which had not yet experienced communism in practice; the great American writer Jack London was one,
and there certainly may have been a few Jewish idealists of Marxism as well. But only a person who has no knowledge
of communism in practice can believe that those who engineered its revolutionary triumph in Russia or commissared its
institutions in Eastern Europe after the Second World War were seekers of justice for the workers.
As for the claim that Jews have an affection for justice and equality greater than that of other races, we only need to look
at the ways in which this alleged affection manifests itself in that part of the world where it should be seen in its purest
form: namely, Israel and the Israeli-occupied Arab territories. Ask any Palestinian about Jewish justice!
Judaism, of course, is unequivocally opposed to feminism and homosexuality -- for Jews. Furthermore, it is a race-based
religion, which defines its adherents in terms of their bloodline and declares them inherently superior to all other races.
How does their promotion of feminism among the goyim, for instance, square with the well-known Jewish prayer, "I thank
you, oh Lord, for not having made me a goy, a slave, or a woman," which is recited every day by the Orthodox faithful?
In the Talmud, that authoritative compendium of the Jewish oral law, there are a thousand other reminders to the Jew
that he is absolutely superior to all other life forms:
Heaven and earth were created only for the sake of the Jews. (Vayikra Rabba 36)
The Jews are human beings, but the goyim are not human beings; they are only beasts. (Baba Mezia 114)
Nationalist Library Powered by Joomla! Generated: 13 October, 2009, 22:28
Yahweh created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is
consequently an animal in human form and is condemned to serve the Jew day and night. (Midrash Talpioth 225)
So much for Jewish egalitarianism. Jewish solicitude for Blacks in America today is as much a fraud as was the claim of
Jewish sympathy for the oppressed proletariat of Russia on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution.
What truly lies in the Jewish heart was revealed by an exceptional Jew, Baruch Spinoza (like Ostrovsky, a renegade),
who wrote in the 17th century:
The love of the Hebrews for their country was not only patriotism but also piety and was cherished and nurtured by daily
rites until, like their hatred of other nations, it was absolutely perverse. . . . Such daily reprobation naturally gave rise to a
lasting hatred, deeply implanted in the heart: for of all hatred, none is more deep and tenacious than that which springs
from extreme devoutness or piety and is itself cherished as pious. (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Chapter 17)
The Jewish role in the non-Jewish world and the Jewish motivation for the policies pursued by the Jewish community
would be much easier to perceive if the Jews acted in a more consistent and straightforward way: if they spoke with a
single voice and spoke truly, saying what really was on their minds. But, then, consistency and straightforwardness would
violate the cardinal rule: By way of deception thou shalt do war.
Nevertheless, on a somewhat higher plane of subtlety, there is a consistency in the Jews' inconsistency. On virtually
every major issue -- political, social, cultural, moral, or what have you -- where there are two principal sides or factions,
Jews will be found pushing in both directions and serving as spokesmen for both factions -- but with a difference.
Consider: For many years prior to Mikhail Gorbachev's recent dismantling of the Soviet power bloc and the general
recognition of Marxism as a fraudulent, unworkable system, communism's principal apologists and apparatchiks in the
West were Jews. So were a number of anti-communist spokesmen.
During the Second World War, of course, the communists could do no wrong in the eyes of the West's controlled media,
because they were helping to destroy the man about whom the Jewish media masters had nightmares. Thus, while
Soviet butchers were torturing thousands of patriots to death in the police cellars of the Baltic countries and liquidating
the Polish leadership stratum at the killing pits in the Katyn woods, Jewish communists in the United States were stealing
the plans and test results from America's atomic bomb program and sending them to their colleagues in the Soviet Union.
After the war was over, however, and a reaction began to set in among White Americans as they realized that the
communist beast they had unleashed against Eastern Europe might end up devouring them too, it was time for Jews to
begin hedging their bets: it was time for the media to begin quoting "responsible" anti-communists. (The "responsible"
ones were those who failed to mention the Jewishness of the system they were speaking out against.)
While the memory of Jewish atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was still fresh and Jewish communist
sympathizers such as Robert Oppenheimer were being weeded out of America's atomic weapons program, Jewish
scientist Edward Teller became the spokesman for anti-communist Americans who wanted a strong, nuclear-armed
America able to stand up to the Soviet Union. Three decades later, after Jews had rooted for the Viet Cong communists
throughout the war in Vietnam, Jews began flocking to the neoconservative movement to speak up for an America strong
enough to defend Israel's interests in the Middle East against the Soviet Union's Arab clients there. Often they were the
same Jews who had been cheering for the Reds a year or two earlier. That really confused the goyim.
Consider: Whenever a gaggle of eggheads gets together in some area to sponsor a classical-music FM radio station as
a sole outpost of European culture in a sea of African rock-and-rap rhythm or sub-dimwit gospel bleating, there surely will
be a Jew or two among them. And when they are interviewed by the local press, it surely will be one of those Jews who
is quoted. That helps to spike any nasty rumors as to who's behind all of the garbage-music programming at the other
Consider: As I have demonstrated elsewhere, the madness of Political Correctness which has infected America's
colleges and universities is Jewish through and through. And many of those who are urging their colleagues to hold the
line against Political Correctness also are Jews (at least, the ones appointed by the media to be spokesmen for
academic freedom are). This not only ensures that the Jews manning the PC barricades won't be criticized as Jews for
wrecking our universities, but it preempts those who might try to swing things too far back toward academic freedom.
Consider: While Jew Howard Metzenbaum in the U.S. Senate and Jew Charles Schumer in the U.S. House of
Representatives spearhead the legislative drive to strip Americans of their right to armed self-defense and are
unanimously and vociferously supported in this effort by the Jewish media, a tiny, Milwaukee-based, Jewish pro-gun
Nationalist Library Powered by Joomla! Generated: 13 October, 2009, 22:28
group calling itself Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) manages to attract far more attention to itself
than its size ordinarily would merit. JPFO is not just a group of pro-gun people who coincidentally happen to be Jews; it is
a group of people who are shouting to the world: "Hey, look at me; I am a Jew, and I am in favor of gun ownership."
Whenever a JPFO spokesman is quoted in the news media -- which is often enough to give the impression that his
organization is right up there with the National Rifle Association, fighting for gun owners' rights -- he flaunts his
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that in any contest it's a good strategy to control your principal opposition. That way
you can put on a great show of bad guys versus good guys struggling against each other, but you are always in a
position to make the contest go in either direction you want and only as far as you want. Not only do you preempt any
real opposition, but you keep the goyim fooled and deflect any criticism of your role in the affair.
By way of deception thou shalt do war.
The deception is masterfully done. It suffices to keep most of the people fooled most of the time. Only a careful study of
the details of a number of different social phenomena in which Jews are involved parts the veil of lies and trickery
sufficiently for us to see a clear pattern.
The pattern is this: Jews come into any homogeneous society -- and such was America at the beginning of this century --
as outsiders, as strangers. The society is effectively closed to them. They cannot easily penetrate its institutions. They
cannot get their hands on the levers of power. If they try they are noticed, suspected, and resisted. And they always must
try. In this they apparently cannot restrain themselves.
To make way for themselves, to open up possibilities for penetration and control, they must break down the structure of
the society, corrupt its institutions, undermine its solidarity, weaken its sense of identity, obliterate its traditions, destroy
its homogeneity. Thus they inevitably will be in favor of democracy, of permissiveness, of every form of self-indulgence
and indiscipline. They will be proponents of cosmopolitanism, of egalitarianism, of multiculturalism. They will oppose
patriotism (except when they are inciting their hosts to fight a war on behalf of Jewish interests). They will agitate
endlessly for change, change, change, and they will call it progress.
And no matter what they are for or against they will have at least some of their number taking the opposite side: If they
are promoting the public acceptance of homosexuality, they also will have a few prominent Jewish publicists bemoaning
the downfall of traditional morality and warning of the consequences of the confusion of sexual roles. If their aim is to
neutralize the universities as institutions for passing on the historical, intellectual, and cultural traditions of our people to a
new generation of potential leaders, at the same time that they are organizing Red Guard brigades to enforce Political
Correctness they will have a contingent beating the drums for tradition and free inquiry. If they are working feverishly to
disarm White Americans in order to prevent the latter from exercising their right of revolution they will go to the Jews for
the Preservation of Firearms Ownership for a contrary statement now and then.
What does all of this prove? In the strictest sense of the word, nothing; it is only suggestive.
If you watch a person flip a penny five hundred times, and it always comes up tails, you cannot be absolutely certain that
the penny has two tails. But you at least ought to suspect that someone has been working on that penny in his machine
If you study the historical record and observe that every matter of importance in which the Jews have been involved
turns out badly for us, even though there are usually a few Jews on our side of the matter, you cannot be absolutely
certain that the game is rigged. But you at least ought to suspect that the Jews are following their ancient maxim and
waging war against us by way of deception.
-- February, 1992
What they said about him:
The Power of Truth: William Pierce
by Kevin Alfred Strom
WILLIAM PIERCE changed my life. And I predict that his ideas will change the lives of millions for the better. As we
celebrate his birthday, September 11th, this week, with our National Vanguard literature distribution in his honor, I want to
give you two things: An impression of the spirit of the man, and his own deepest thoughts as teacher and mentor and
maker of the future.
William Pierce was a tall, rangy, powerful man, more physically fit at nearly seventy than he had been at fifty. It was in
his fifties that he took on the tasks of an almost pioneer-style existence in his mountain aerie, the beauty of which was
one of his greatest inspirations and where, sadly, the unworthy now stammer and feed. His strength, both intellectual and
Nationalist Library Powered by Joomla! Generated: 13 October, 2009, 22:28
physical, was impressive.
But he was also a man with a sensitive appreciation for the beautiful, an artist's appreciation. He saw beauty in the
cosmos that gave us all birth, and he saw beauty in his fellow creatures -- even the lowest of them. He hated suffering
and those who wantonly or unthinkingly caused it. He told me that one of the best ways to judge the character of a man
was by the way he treated helpless creatures which by chance or plan came into his power.
To those with a shallow understanding of life, it may seem strange to say this, but Dr. William Pierce was a truly kind
man. It takes strength to be truly kind, and he had the requisite strength.
To always say the soothing thing, even when it leads on to ruin, is not kindness. To never offend and always conform to
what the other man -- or the crowd -- wants to hear is "kindness" only if you are either blindly stupid and cannot see
beyond the next moment, or it is malice and cruelty wielded by an enemy in disguise. Such are the words of "tolerance"
spoken to the homosexual seducer, his misled victim, or the racemixer. Such are the pastel promises of harmonious
multiracialism and "one world." They lead to the AIDS ward and the end of the line. They lead to the pools of blood and
filth that lie on the floors of the Superdome. They lead to the grave of extinction.
True kindness consists in using one's brain and seeing the long-term consequences of our actions or our failure to act.
True kindness often requires reminders of harsh realities, and inducing painful realizations of error. True kindness
sometimes requires eliciting admissions that one's most cherished beliefs were illusions, and insisting on painful
transitions to a whole new way of life. True kindness requires absolutely rational delineation of the real choices that must
be made, no matter how daunting the prospect. Dr. Pierce had that sort of kindness.
After the break, I will return with the words of Dr. William L. Pierce.
* * *
On racial identity, William Pierce taught us:
'No people is morally and spiritually healthy unless it is imbued with a strong sense of its own identity. Essential to that
sense of identity are an awareness and an understanding of all the qualities which the members of the people share in
William Pierce alerted us to the dangers we face as a people. No other man of his time was as forthright or as deep and
insightful as he. As we celebrate his birthday, we need to listen to his words of warning, which are even more applicable
today than when he wrote them:
'To recapitulate the present situation of the White race:
* 'White geographical expansion, which was the rule for the last four centuries, has not only been halted in the 20th
century, with the end of European colonialism, but it has been reversed in the period since the Second World War, with
the beginning of a massive migration of non-Whites from their overcrowded and poverty-ridden lands into the stillprosperous
White areas of the northern hemisphere.
* 'White numerical growth, which until this century was yielding a steady increase in the White to non-White ratio in the
world as a whole, has been overtaken by a population explosion in non-White lands. There are now more than four non-
Whites for every White living on the planet, and the ratio is shifting toward an even greater non-White preponderance at
an accelerating rate.
* 'Social mixing of Whites and non-Whites in the period since the Second World War has resulted in a catastrophic
increase in miscegenation and in the consequent blending of mixed-bloods into the "White" population, both in the United
States and in Europe.
* 'The dysgenic effects of the 20th century's wars have been augmented greatly by social-welfare programs which are
hastening the general lowering of White racial quality....
'The prognosis is grave. If the present demographic trends continue unabated for another half-century, and if no
sustained effort to ensure an alternative outcome is made during that time by a determined and farsighted minority of
people of European ancestry, then the race ...will have reached the end of its long journey.
'It may linger another century or more in isolated enclaves, such as Iceland, and its characteristic features or coloring will
recur with diminishing frequency in individuals for the next millennium, but before the middle of the 21st century it will
Nationalist Library Powered by Joomla! Generated: 13 October, 2009, 22:28
have reached its point of no return.
'Then, gradually or quickly, the race which built the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome, which
conquered the earth and established its dominion over every other race, which unlocked the secret of the atom and
harnessed the power which lights the sun, and which freed itself from the grasp of gravity and reached out to new worlds
will vanish into the eternal darkness.
'Some of its works — its languages, its science, its social structures, its machines and weapons — will fall
into the hands of a different, darker race, which will use them for a while. Eventually no trace will remain, not even a
memory in the minds of a degraded humanity which will have long since abandoned the upward Quest which was the
unique mission of the vanished race.
'And the present demographic trends will continue so long as the political, religious, and social concepts and values
which presently circumscribe the thinking of the Western peoples and their leaders continue to have a determining role.
For at root it is a moral defect which threatens the race's survival.
'If the will to survive existed among the White masses — if the people as a whole in any large, predominantly
White country possessed a strong sense of racial identity and a sense of responsibility to the future, and if they were
willing to take the necessary measures (which would require that they act contrary to the dictates of the religion to which
the majority of them pay lip service) — then the physical threat could be overcome, certainly and quickly.
'Non-White immigration could be halted immediately, with relatively little effort. Undoing the effects of earlier non-White
immigration and of miscegenation would be a much larger task... These things could be accomplished, even at this late
date. And once accomplished in one major country, they could be extended worldwide, though perhaps not without
another major war and its attendant risks. But, of course, they will not be accomplished, because the will to survive does
not exist, and has not existed in the White population of any major power since the end of the Second World War
'So, much will inevitably be lost during the next few decades. The population balance everywhere will shift even more
rapidly toward the non-Whites, the mongrels, and the unfit. The world will become a poorer, uglier, noisier, more
crowded, and dirtier place. Superstition, degeneracy, and corruption will be pervasive, even among those Whites of
sound racial stock, and much of the best stock will disappear forever through racial mixing.
'And repression will certainly increase everywhere: those who stand for quality over quantity and for racial progress will
be denied the right of dissent and the right of self-defense, in the name of "freedom" and "justice."
'Ultimately, however, none of these losses need be decisive or even significant, frightening though they may be to
contemplate now, and terrible though they may be to experience in the dark years immediately ahead. All that is really
important is that a portion of the race survive, keep itself pure physically and spiritually, continue propagating itself, and
eventually prevail over those who threaten its existence, even if this take a thousand years; and to ensure this outcome
is the urgent task of the racially conscious minority of our people in these perilous times.
'The duration of the task will be decades, at the least, and perhaps centuries. History has a very great inertia; a historical
process of long duration may culminate suddenly in a single, cataclysmic event, but every major development in the
history of the race has had deep roots and has grown in soil thoroughly prepared for it by preceding developments. The
course of history now, so far as our race is concerned, is steeply downward, and to change its direction will be no
overnight matter, nor will this be accomplished by any gimcrack scheme which promises success without first building a
foundation for that success, block by carefully laid block.
'The workers at the task will be only a tiny minority of the race. Any program which envisages an "awakening of the
masses" or which relies on the native wisdom of the great bulk of our people — which is to say, any populist
program — is based on a false vision and a false understanding of the nature of the masses. No great, upward
step in all of our long history has ever been accomplished by the bulk of any population, but always by an exceptional
individual or a few exceptional individuals. The masses always take the path of least resistance: which is to say, they
always follow the strongest faction. It is important to work with the masses, to inform them, to influence them, to recruit
from among them; but they must not be counted on for determinative, spontaneous support until after a small minority
has already, by its own efforts, built a stronger force than that of any opposing faction.
'The task is inherently fundamental, and it will be accomplished only through a fundamental approach. That is to say,
those who devote themselves to it must be pure in spirit and mind; they must understand that their goal is a society
based on quite different values from those underlying the present society, and they must be committed wholeheartedly
and without reservation to that goal; they must be prepared to outgrow all the baggage of superstition and convention
inherent in the present society. Thus, the task is not one for conservatives or right wingers, for, "moderates" or liberals, or
for any of those whose thinking is mired in the errors and in the corruption which have led us to the downward course,
but it is a task for those capable of an altogether new consciousness of the world.
Nationalist Library Powered by Joomla! Generated: 13 October, 2009, 22:28
'The task is a biological, cultural, and spiritual one as well as an educational and political one. Its goal has meaning only
with reference to a particular type of person, and if this type cannot be preserved while the educational and political
aspects of the task are being performed, then the goal cannot be achieved. If the task cannot be completed in a single
generation, then there must exist, somewhere, a social milieu which reflects and embodies the cultural and spiritual
values associated with the goal, and serves to pass these values from one generation to the next. ...This requirement
may be difficult of fulfillment, but it is essential. What should be envisaged, then, is a task with both an internal, or
community-oriented aspect, and an external, or political-educational-recruiting aspect.
'...The task set out here is a very large one, and accomplishing it will require greater will, intelligence, and selflessness
than demanded from the race in any previous crisis. The danger we face now, from the enemy within our gates as well
as the one still outside, is greater than the one we faced from the deracinated Romans in the first century, the Huns in
the fifth century, the Moors in the eighth century, or the Mongols in the 13th century. If we do not overcome it, we will
have no second chance.
'But the task of survival has always been a demanding one, just as it is an unrelenting one. We have always met its
demands in the past, or we would not be here today. There is no fundamental reason why we cannot overcome the
present threat to our survival, horrendous though it be, and live to face new threats in the future.
'What we must do, however, is understand that all our resources in the coming struggle must come from within
ourselves; there will be no outside help, no miracles.'
You have been listening to the words of William L. Pierce, presented here as part of our efforts to honor him on what
would have been his 72nd birthday.
Dr. Pierce's ideas were deeper and more fundamental than those of any other twentieth century thinker. His wisdom will
echo through the ages. I believe his name will be among the pantheon of greats in future centuries -- centuries of our
people's civilization that he will have helped to make possible.
William Pierce knew that we are made of the same stuff as the Earth and the stars, and that the souls of the men and
women of our race are in some sense the soul of Life and of the Universe itself. If you had to encapsulate William
Pierce's life in a single sentence, it would be: He saw that the purpose of life is the increase of consciousness; he saw
that our race was the leading edge and the living agent of that increase in consciousness; and he dedicated his life to the
preservation and advancement of the most advanced race -- our own.
This view of ourselves as agents of evolving Life -- and Life itself as an agent of an as-yet dimly seen force immanent in
the Earth and in the Cosmos itself -- has been expressed by other men, though never so forcefully or fully as it was
expressed by Dr. Pierce. One such man was the poet John Hall Wheelock, who said in his poem Earth:
For the earth that breeds the trees
Breeds cities too, and symphonies.
Equally her beauty flows
Into a saviour, or a rose...
Through Leonardo's hand she seeks
Herself, and through Beethoven speaks....
Even as the growing grass
Up from the soil religions pass...
And all man is, or yet may be,
Is but herself in agony
Toiling up the steep ascent
Toward the complete accomplishment
When all dust shall be, the whole
Universe, one conscious soul.
Yea, the quiet and cool sod
Bears in her breast the dream of God....
Earlier in the program I called William Pierce a truly kind man. I am sure that some of you were startled when I said that.
I hope that, after hearing his words, you can see that I spoke the truth. I hope you can see that Dr. Pierce's kindness was
not the type that you find expressed on a drug store greeting card. Dr. Pierce's kindness was true kindness.
His love for his people was true, and if his words were hard it was because they needed to be hard. Your family won't
make it through the jungle by sitting down and playing cards and repeating "everything's going to be all right." The words
you need to hear are more along the lines of "don't take the path through the quicksand"; "fashion this weapon to defeat
the predators who are massing to kill us"; and "I have scouted ahead, and here is the best way to reach the high ground
Nationalist Library Powered by Joomla! Generated: 13 October, 2009, 22:28
we can see on the horizon." Those are words that lead to right action; those are words that give you and yours a chance
of making it when things get tough.
His words and thoughts were Dr. Pierce's gifts of loving kindness to us. Let us hear them, act on them, and do right.
They can lead us on to an unimaginably bright and beautiful world, where the highest thoughts and most intense love
and most moving beauty are yet to be seen.
Old December 27th, 2019 #34
alex revision
Senior Member
alex revision's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 21,830
alex revision

William Pierce - About the White Middle Class

On November 18th, 2000., the "late but GREAT"., Dr. William Pierce (of the "National Alliance") spoke about "the white middle class" in America., and gave some VERY well articulated insights into just SOME of the many reasons as to why they (and many of us today.!)

dr. william pierce, william pierce


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:41 PM.
Page generated in 0.23230 seconds.