web analytics

Category: William Pierce

Categories
Civil war Justice / revenge Real men William Pierce

The Fame, 3

WLP

From The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds:
An Up-Close Portrait of William Pierce
by Robert Griffin

 
In addition to the weekly broadcasts and book-selling activities, Pierce writes the copy for a members-only monthly National Alliance newsletter. There is also the irregularly published glossy magazine, National Vanguard, which the ADL [Note of the Ed.: a Jewish hate group] report says attempts to intellectualize the Alliance’s racist and anti-Semitic agenda. The highbrow tone of National Vanguard contrasts sharply with the cruder, poorly-edited propaganda materials of other extremist groups and heightens the appeal the National Alliance has among those whom the report refers to as “better-educated bigots.”

Explosion of Hate notes that other murderers and terrorists besides Timothy McVeigh appear to have been inspired by Pierce’s violence-filled writings and pronouncements. In the 1980s a gang calling itself the “Order,” after the elite paramilitary unit in The Turner Diaries, went on a crime spree which included bombing a synagogue, murdering a Jewish talk show host, counterfeiting, and robbing over four million dollars in an armored car heist. The Order’s leader, Robert Mathews, was a member of the National Alliance and recruiter for the Alliance who once spoke at one of the organization’s national conventions. Reportedly, Mathews told people that he was intent on being the catalyst for an uprising against the System like the one described in Pierce’s book.

Mathews, who was killed by FBI agents in a shoot-out, has become a martyr and cult hero among right wing fringe elements and a model for others who would follow his lead. The ADL report cites the statement of then-publisher George Burdi in the skinhead-oriented magazine Resistance invoking Mathews’ memory in the course of singing the praises of the National Alliance. Said Burdi: “The National Alliance is clearly the most forward-looking and progressive racialist organization in the world today, and it is no wonder that Robert Mathews endorsed them so wholeheartedly.” Another example, authorities say a white supremacist group calling itself the Aryan Republican Army and led by a man called Peter Langan committed twenty-two bank robberies and bombings across Midwest between 1992 and 1996. Langan praised Robert Mathews and instructed his viewers to “learn from Bob.” Not surprisingly The Turner Diaries was required reading in the Aryan Republican Army.

The ADL report lists a number of recent crimes that can be linked in some way to Pierce and the National Alliance. Among them:

  • In March of 1998, Dennis McGiffin and two others were charged with conspiracy to possess and make machine guns. FBI agents testified that McGiffin and the others were influenced by The Turner Diaries. They planned to form a “New Order” and talked of, among other things, bombing state capitols and post offices and poisoning public water supplies with cyanide.
  • In 1997, Todd Vanbiber, a National Alliance adherent in Winter Park, Florida, pleaded guilty to illegally constructing and possessing explosives and was sentenced to six-and-one-half years in prison. At a sentencing hearing in October 1997, a cellmate testified that Vanbiber admitted he planned to use the bombs against African Americans attending Fourth of July celebrations. A Federal complaint against Vanbiber alleged that he had met with William Pierce at his West Virginia compound for two hours and while there donated one thousand dollars to the National Alliance and purchased seven hundred dollars worth of its literature.
  • In December 1995, a black couple was gunned down near Fort Bragg in North Carolina in what prosecutors called a racially motivated killing. James Burmeister and Malcolm Wright, members of the 82nd Airborne Division, were convicted of the murders and sentenced to life in prison. Burmeister and Wright reportedly read National Alliance propaganda. Prior to these events, the National Alliance had been attempting to attract members among U.S. Army personnel at Fort Bragg. One of its activitists, Robert Hunt, a soldier and recruiter for the Alliance, rented a billboard and used it to post an advertisement and local phone number for the organization.
  • In April of 1996, Larry Wayne Shoemaker killed one African American and injured seven others in Jackson, Mississippi. According to his ex-wife, Shoemaker first encountered National Alliance propaganda in the mid-1980s, when he borrowed The Turner Diaries from a friend. She said her husband wasn’t the same after he read Pierce’s novel. “It was like an eye-opener for him,” his wife said. “There was a distinct difference in him.” Shoemaker soon began subscribing to Pierce’s monthly publications.
Categories
Civil war Turner Diaries (novel) William Pierce

The Fame, 2

WLP

From The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds:
An Up-Close Portrait of William Pierce
by Robert Griffin


 
In William Pierce’s novel, The Turner Diaries, the events that set off the anti-government terrorist acts of Earl Turner were a series of brutish government raids on gun owners following the passage of federal legislation outlawing the private ownership of firearms. Turner reacted to the raids by blowing up a federal building with a fuel-oil and fertilizer bomb concealed in a truck. Not only was the composition of the fictional bomb almost exactly the same as the one Timothy McVeigh constructed and detonated, it was also almost exactly the same weight. It seems very probable that McVeigh saw parallels between the government raid on the Branch Davidians in Waco to enforce anti-gun laws and the gun raids portrayed in The Turner Diaries, and that McVeigh responded to what he saw as the unwarranted and violent assaults on gun owners in Waco the same way that the protagonist in Pierce’s book, Earl Turner, had responded to the heavy-handed crackdowns on gun owners by agents of the fictional federal government.

Anti-Defamation League [Note of the Ed.: A Jewish hate group] sources have reported that just days before the bombing, McVeigh mailed an envelope to his sister in Florida containing copies of the cover and selected pages from The Turner Diaries. He included a note that said she should be sure to read the back cover. On the back cover of The Turner Diaries at the top in bold black letters is the question, “What will you do when they come to take your guns?” And then the answer: “The patriots fight back with a campaign of sabotage and terror.” When McVeigh’s sister learned of her brother’s arrest in connection with the bombing, she burned the contents of the envelope.

Incidentally, McVeigh’s accomplice in the bombing, Terry Nichols, also may have been influenced by the writings of William Pierce. Federal agents found a copy of another of Pierce’s novels, Hunter, in Nichols’ home. They saw few other books in the house. Hunter, written in the late 1980s, is Pierce’s follow-up to The Turner Diaries. It recounts the exploits of Oscar Yeager, who tries to “cleanse” America by killing first interracial couples and then Jews.

In the weeks immediately preceding the bombing, McVeigh stayed at the Imperial Hotel off Route 66 near Kingman, Arizona. Several sources have reported that between April 5th and April 11th McVeigh made seven calls to a message center operated by a radical right-wing organization called the National Alliance. The chairman of the National Alliance is William Pierce. Two of the seven calls allegedly were patched through to Pierce’s unlisted number in West Virginia where he is headquartered.

The Turner Diaries was the very first piece of evidence introduced by the prosecution at McVeigh’ s trial in Denver. During the trial, several of McVeigh’s friends told the court that he had mailed them copies of the book along with a note encouraging them to read it. One of them, Kyle Kraus, a buddy from McVeigh’ s army days, testified that when he learned of the Oklahoma City bombing, he was immediately reminded of scenes from the book and grabbed the copy McVeigh had sent him and took it to the local FBI office.

McVeigh’s first contact with The Turner Diaries came when he was in the army and ran across an advertisement for the book in the mail order section of the survivalist magazine, Soldier of Fortune. McVeigh ordered the book and according to those around him at the time awaited its arrival with eager anticipation. When the book finally arrived, McVeigh became obsessed with it, reports his roommate William Dilly. “He took it into the field and read it for three weeks straight,” Dilly said. “He said it was really wild and tried to get me to read it.” Another friend of McVeigh’s, Brandon Sticky, said that McVeigh read and re-read the book and was known for constantly carrying his well-thumbed copy of the small paperback around with him in his pocket.

After leaving the service, McVeigh sold The Turner Diaries at weekend gun shows, often for less than his own cost. Fellow gun-show merchants said it was as if the contents of the book were his religion and he were looking for converts. “Mostly, McVeigh’s fervor came from The Turner Diaries,” a gun collector who crossed paths with him said later. “He was its greatest publicist. He carried the book all the time. He sold it at the shows. He’d have a few copies in the cargo pocket of his cammies. They were supposed to be $10, but he’d sell them for $5.”

Apparently The Turner Diaries altered the course of Tim McVeigh’s life as well as the lives of thousands of people in Oklahoma City. And to the extent that the Oklahoma City bombing is a memorable event—and even, in ways that are not clear to us now, a significant event—William Pierce’s self-published novel has become part of the history of America.

Categories
William Pierce Women

The Fame, 1

WLP

From The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds:
An Up-Close Portrait of William Pierce
by Robert Griffin


 
 

Cattle die, and kinsmen die,
And so one dies oneself;
One thing I know that never dies:
The fame of a dead man’s deeds.

—Pre-Christian Norse poem.

 

PREFACE

It was a little after 7:00 p.m. on one of the pleasant summer evenings I had come to expect in the mountains of West Virginia. I was waiting for William Pierce in his cluttered, book-lined office in the National Alliance headquarters building. I had been living in this remote area on Pierce’s property for over two weeks at that point. When I had come to his office a couple of minutes before, I was surprised to find that Pierce wasn’t there. We were well into a series of interviews I was conducting with him in the evenings, and he’d always been here when I arrived. I assumed that something had held him up and that he would be along in a minute or two. I set up my tape recorder and went over the notes I had put together about the areas I wanted to explore during that night’s session.

I had just finished going through my notes when out of the corner of my eye I saw someone come in through the door to the left of where I was seated. It wasn’t Pierce but rather his new wife, with Pierce right behind her. That surprised me; always before, Pierce had been alone.

“Bob, could you and I talk after you talk with Bill?” Pierce’ s wife said in her halting, heavily-accented English and in her polite and gentle way. She had come from Eastern Europe to West Virginia less than a year before. She and Pierce had not met before she came, and after she was here only a month they married. Pierce’s wife is an attractive woman of about fifty I would guess, with auburn hair and very fair skin. She had taught art to children in her native country. I was taken by her calling him “Bill.” She was the only one who lived or worked on the property who did. To everyone else, including me, he was Dr. Pierce. She seemed on edge about something. She was usually smiling and upbeat, but not now.

“Oh, why don’t you two talk now,” Pierce interjected gruffly. “You don’t have to wait until later.”

With that, Pierce’s wife sat down on the nearest of a row of chairs that face Pierce’s desk. I was seated a couple of chairs away from the one she sat on. Pierce went around his desk and took a seat behind it.

There we were, the three of us. It was silent for a moment. There was tension in the air, but I had no idea what it was about.

Pierce’s wife turned and faced me. “I have something to ask of you,” she said. She seemed shaken.

“Is there something wrong?” I asked.

“I’m afraid,” she replied.

“Afraid?”

“Bill gets letters from people who say they are going to kill him. I was here for four months before I knew that. I didn’t know that!”

“You do look frightened,” I said.

“I’ve asked Bob [Bob DeMarais, an aide to Pierce] if something happens to Bill to help me return to my country.”

I didn’t know what to say, and up to that point Pierce hadn’t said anything.

“In your book,” she continued, “please don’t use my name or say where I am from. And please don’t show my picture. I am afraid something will happen to me if people know who I am.”

I said I didn’ t want to see her afraid like this, and that I would use some other name for her, and that I wouldn’t say what country she was from or use her picture.

“Thank you,” she said. “That is very nice of you.”

At this point, still seated, she dipped her hand into her pants pocket and pulled out a pistol. I jumped. “I carry this everywhere I go,” she said as she held the gun neck high in her right hand to display it to me.

I was speechless and stared at the gun.

“Don’t be waving that gun around, it’s loaded!” Pierce barked.

“You maybe think it is silly I have a gun,” she said to me, the pistol now in her lap. “But Bill wears a gun all the time. He has it right next to him when he goes to sleep.”

As a matter of fact, Pierce had a holstered weapon strapped to his waist at that very moment—I’d gotten used to that. I reiterated that I would protect her identity.

So I will call Pierce’s wife Irena in the book. It is the only name I have changed.

Categories
Kali Yuga William Pierce

“We’re unique”

These two subjects are not unrelated: (1) As to date I got only one germane response to my Syssitias piece that I posted two weeks ago—Ward Kendall’s. And (2) my yesterday diatribe against white nationalists—“They are behaving like a cuckold watching two niggers, capitalism and Christianity, fucking his wife”.

They are two sides of the same coin. As William Pierce put it in Hunter:

dr_pierceJust because you and I have the balls and the inclination to join such a fight doesn’t mean that anyone else does. We’re unique. There aren’t any others like us left in this degenerate age. You’d end up with a few hundred White volunteers, and you’d find those impossible to discipline. The rest would be sitting at home waiting for their television sets to come back on and tell them what to think, running with the niggers and joining the looting and raping, or praying for Jesus to save them. Understand?

And you keep telling me that it’s all because of the Joooz? Don’t make me laugh!

Categories
Blacks Civil war Eschatology Psychology Real men Sword Turner Diaries (novel) William Pierce

Brace yourself!

“Whites are dying because they have no defense in real life, just whining internet cowards. Every site that is pro White is White Nationalist infantile dribble. Until Whites can muster a defense without the vulgar and endless brooding [in] White Nationalism they will continue to die.”

—Keith

 
It’s eight days now since I posted the “Syssitias” article. At a very generous estimate, pro-white discussion over the net, whether race realism, white nationalism, southern nationalism or neo-Nazism is only a mood, not a movement.

Unlike what can be read in Hitler’s biography, presently a sponsor for creating a boots-on-the-ground movement doesn’t exist. But what is really alarming is that thousands of pro-white men discussing in the internet don’t want to fight.

Jack Frost recently reminded us that William Pierce used to say that the only way to re-educate a brainwashed individual is with a stout oaken table leg. Nothing else will work. This is my take on the subject:

    1.- Presently, whites are in Happy Mood (proof is that even white nationalists are unwilling to pick real fights, as Commander Rockwell did);

    2.- Right after the dollar crashes, whites, in general, will be in Angry Mood;

    3.- The following months, after hungry blacks chimpout and start attacking us massively in the big cities, in the countryside whites will switch their minds to Combat Mood, a mood that is basically defensive: they will defend their farms and families from feral niggers looking for food and white pussy;

My crystal ball cannot see beyond this scenario. But if racists were not as spineless as they are today, they would know that Chaos is Opportunity and that, if Syssitia-like groups were already formed, a big window of opportunity would be opened to form cadres for these whites in Combat Mood (which again, is merely defensive provided that private guns will not be confiscated). We would educate them about the causes of the unfolding societal collapse.

Combat Mood is preliminary. My ideal brothers-in-arms would be those who are so fanatic that they are already in:

    4.- Killing Mood.

This mood has been illustrated in Pierce’s The Turner Diaries. The ultimate goal for those in this mood is fighting a guerrilla war, of decades if necessary, until obtaining control of the nuke bombs of a western nation. (Which is why I am not considering Covington’s novels, as he believes that a non-nuclear, neo-Nazi nation at the corner of the US, can survive without such weapons of mass destruction.)

braceI am already in this Killing Mood but, if I won’t become violent for the moment, it’s because the masses of westerners are in Happy Mood and wouldn’t understand such action. (See these excerpts of Pierce’s second novel that illustrate my point, and also his 1968 article.)

Forming Syssitias would be the first baby step in the direction of bracing ourselves, but isn’t it depressing that racially conscious whites are not preparing for The Day?

Categories
Egalitarianism Evil Liberalism Mainstream media Psychology William Pierce

Truth before fashion

by William Pierce

wlp_bas_relief 
Perhaps you’ll pardon me if I speak to you today in a more personal vein than I usually do. I want to tell you about some personal perceptions of mine, because I believe that many of you who are listening have had similar perceptions. I believe many of you have something in common with me, something very important.

When I was a little boy, 11 or 12 years old, I used to spend my time taking clocks apart, building radios and model airplanes, and doing experiments in a tiny laboratory that I had in my parents’ garage. I used to make little solid-fuel rockets and try them out in the back yard. My ambition was to be a rocket scientist when I grew up. And that’s what I became, at least for a while, until I returned to the university to teach.

The point is that, more than anything else, I was interested in learning what made things tick. I was fascinated by knowledge, by discovery, by the truth. I didn’t care at all what was fashionable: I wanted to know what was true. I was the kind of fellow who sometimes would wear one brown sock and one blue sock, because it really didn’t make any difference to me. And I’m pretty much still that way, except that now my wife makes sure that my socks match.

While I was growing up, of course, I paid some attention to what was happening in the world around me. I knew that there were good people and bad people, smart ones and stupid ones. I knew that the world wasn’t perfect, but I believed that it could be made better. I still believe that.

After I was grown I learned one thing, however, which was really depressing to me for quite a long while. I learned that most of the people around me—not all, but most—were much more interested in what was fashionable than in what was true. When I was a university student, for example, I was very interested in history, and I wanted to discuss the various topics which came up in class with fellow students. Whenever the topic was an ideologically sensitive one, however—the Second World War, for example—I found that it was very difficult to carry on an objective conversation with most people. They would balk whenever the discussion wandered onto unfashionable ground. I would ask the students I was talking with, why is it that almost no member of the general public can tell us how many American GIs died during the war—or how many Germans or how many Poles—but nearly everyone thinks he knows that “six million” Jews died? Why is that? Is it that people believe that only Jews are important? Or is it that they have been brainwashed with propaganda by the media, which are controlled by Jews? And if there is propaganda involved, shouldn’t we be suspicious of its claims?

Well, whenever I would say things like that, the people I was talking with would become uncomfortable. Some would become emotional. They would refuse to continue the discussion.

I’ll give you a more recent example of this sort of thing. A few weeks ago the United States sent a military expedition to Haiti to force the government controlled at that time by General Raoul Cedras to abdicate in favor of Mr. Clinton’s good friend, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. General Cedras was a dictator, we were told by the controlled media—a bad man—and Aristide was a democrat, a good man, a man much like Bill Clinton. We were sending troops to Haiti, the media said, to restore democracy.

Now, it’s true that most Americans weren’t as enthusiastic about sending troops to Haiti to install Aristide as the gang around President Clinton was. But we went along with it. And if you watch the television news coverage of the military occupation, you are led to believe that our soldiers are enthusiastic about their assignment. They are doing a noble thing, they believe, giving Haiti back to Aristide and restoring democracy.

Now, the fact is that Mr. Aristide is a Communist, and besides that a much worse thug and terrorist than General Cedras ever was. In 1991, when Aristide was the top dog in Haiti, he ruled by terror and murder. He killed his opponents with burning tires, “necklacing” them, as the Blacks call it, before General Cedras booted him out of the presidential palace. It is difficult to imagine a more despicable criminal than Jean-Bertrand Aristide as the ruler of a country. And our government is backing him. Our troops are keeping him in power and taking guns away from Haitians who oppose him.

Isn’t that amazing?

But just try discussing that with the average U.S. voter. He doesn’t want to talk about it. It’s unfashionable. About as far as the average American will go is admitting that what goes on in Haiti isn’t our business, and that we should let the Haitians run their own affairs.

Some Americans will say that we had to intervene in Haiti because economic conditions were so bad there that we had a flood of Haitian “boat people” coming into this country. That, of course, is sheer nonsense: economic conditions were worse than usual in Haiti before our invasion because the Clinton government had imposed an embargo on the country in an attempt to force General Cedras out. That’s why the Haitians were starving: it was Mr. Clinton’s embargo. But most people don’t want to hear that.

And they don’t want to hear about the fact that Aristide is a Communist and a bloodthirsty terrorist. They prefer to hear that our troops are in Haiti to “restore democracy.” That’s what is fashionable. That’s what it is comfortable to believe.

Now, let me become personal again.

During the past 30 years I’ve noticed this sort of failure of reason over and over again. I’ve seen the government in Washington adopt policies that I was certain were destructive policies, policies that would lead to the loss of our freedom, to the loss of everything that we hold dear. I was appalled, and I would speak out against these policies.

But invariably the controlled media supported the policies, and so the policies were fashionable in the eyes of most people. People who were against the government’s policies were called “racists” by the media. They were called “isolationists.” They were called “haters.” And most people let themselves be bullied by the media. They went along because it was fashionable to go along.

And so there I was, time after time, concerned about trends that I could see developing, concerned about subtle shifts in the propaganda of the controlled media, concerned about changes in government policy. I could see all around me the bad effects of such trends. I could see where these new trends were heading. It was clear. It was obvious. But other people seemed not to notice. It was as if they were oblivious to the destruction of their own world which was going on around them. I felt very frustrated that they refused to see what I saw, that they continued to pretend that things were fine when I knew that we were headed for disaster.

Can you picture that situation? Have you ever felt the way I’ve just described?

I don’t mean to say that I always was right, that I always knew better than everybody else. I can make mistakes, I can make errors of judgment, just like anyone. But when I make a mistake it’s an honest mistake. I don’t deliberately misjudge things in order to be fashionable.

The unfortunate fact is that much more often than not my judgments about the government’s policies have been correct. Policies that I instinctively felt to be wrong have turned out to be so. Trends that analysis and reflection convinced me were degenerative trends have turned out to be so. And I have never hesitated to speak out. I have never hesitated to say, for example, “Hey, everybody, the government’s immigration policy is a disaster. It’s changing the racial character of America. It will destroy everything that’s good about our country if we permit it to continue.” And the controlled media then would turn their hatred against me. They would shriek at me: Racist! White supremacist! Hater!

Or I would say, “Hey, everybody, the reason the crime problem has become so bad during the past 30 years is that we’re subsidizing it. We’re using our taxes to help the minorities, who are responsible for most crime, to breed. We’ve accepted so-called ‘civil rights’ laws which are empowering and protecting the criminal elements.” And the controlled media would shriek at me again: Racist! Hater!

And, of course, I wasn’t being a hater at all. I was simply concerned about the destruction of my country, the destruction of the civilization which my ancestors had built at such great cost, and I was giving voice to my concerns. I was speaking the truth as I saw it, even when the truth wasn’t fashionable.

And I must admit that sometimes I had the very unsettling impression that I was one of a small minority of sane people, and that the majority of the population had fallen under the influence of a gang of lunatics and were letting the lunatics make all of the policies.

I’ve been seeing the quality of education in America fall disastrously year after year, and in response the government has formulated new educational policies which I knew could only make things worse, policies which almost seemed calculated to make things worse. Instead of aiming for quality in the schools, the government ever since the Second World War has been pushing for “equality.” The quality of the educational system goes down, and so the government forces a big dose of “equality” on it. That makes the quality go down even more, and so the government responds with an even bigger dose of forced “equality.” And when I see this I have to pinch myself, I have to say to myself: Are you really the only sane person in this country; are you the only one who can see that this policy of pushing “equality” instead of quality will only make things worse? Are you the only one who still has a grip on reality?

And, of course, I know that I’m not the only one who feels this way. I know that there are many of you who also feel yourselves the only sane people in a world gone mad. I know that there are many of you who still prefer the truth to whatever is fashionable at the moment. Otherwise you wouldn’t be listening to this program.

The problem is that we sane people, we rational people, we people who accept the evidence of our eyes and are able to make comparisons of what we see today with what we saw in the past—we have got to do a better job of sticking together. We have to put up a united front against the lunatics.

And, you know, it can be done. It is possible for the sane minority to get the lunatics back into their cages and then begin repairing the damage they’ve done. It is possible to take the media away from the destructive psychopaths now in control.

I’m given hope by the fact that even the majority of ordinary Americans, the ones who always prefer to be fashionable, finally have overdosed on insanity. The gang of Clintonistas who’ve been running the country into the ground for the last two years have scared them so badly that we had a massive repudiation of them and their policies at the polls recently. Even the trendy air-heads who’ve been tolerating insanity for decades have finally said, “Enough!”

Please don’t think that what I’ve just said means that I’m a Republican. The good thing about the recent elections is not that the Republican Party won; the good thing is that the elections put a party in control of the legislative branch of the government which is different from the party in control of the executive branch. If we’re lucky we’ll have the two parties fighting each other to a standstill for the next two years. We’ll have governmental gridlock, and the government won’t be able to do as much damage as otherwise.

This gives us a little breathing space, a little time to organize ourselves and prepare for battle with the lunatics.

Actually, I’ve used the word “lunatics” loosely in describing those we oppose. The people who control the media and the people in the government who take orders from them aren’t really crazy. They’re evil. Do you understand that? Evil. They’re people committed to the destruction of everything beautiful and noble and decent in the world. We don’t want to put them in a lunatic asylum. We want to hunt them down—every last one of them—and put a final end to their evil.

One of the most interesting results of the recent elections was the rebellion of White Californians against the growing tide of illegal immigrants from Mexico which was swamping their state. That rebellion expressed itself as Proposition 187. The media people and the Clintonistas—and also many Christians who have been infected with the egalitarian madness—are really unhappy about Proposition 187. They’re hinting that those who voted for it are “racists,” that the only reason they want to make things more difficult for illegal aliens is that most of the aliens aren’t White, because they’re Mexicans, mestizos.

And the White voters are responding, “Oh, no, that’s not the reason at all. We’re not racists. We just want to keep our schools and other public facilities from being overwhelmed.”

But, really, for most of them that’s a dishonest response. The whole reason why Proposition 187 was necessary is because the illegal immigrants are non-White. If they were English or Swedish or German they wouldn’t be a problem. They wouldn’t be a threat. Everyone understands that, but most people are afraid to say it. They are afraid of being unfashionable. So they kept smiling and pretending that everything was all right for 50 years, while their country was being ruined by the media and the government. Finally they had too much, and they rebelled by voting for Proposition 187. But they still won’t face the situation squarely and call a spade a spade. They still prefer being fashionable to dealing in the truth.

But, at least—at least—they did rebel. That’s a very good sign indeed. It shows that there are limits to how much the average citizen will let himself be abused. It’s good to know that. I had begun to worry that he would put up with anything rather than risk being called a “racist.”

You know, the trouble with most people is not that they’re stupid. Most people can figure out as well as you and I can that if you give welfare to Blacks, pretty soon you’ll have more Blacks.

They can understand that if you don’t control your borders, pretty soon you’ll have more Mexicans and Haitians in the country.

They can figure out that if you then pass special laws to protect criminals, you’ll have a lot more crime to deal with.

They know that if you begin mixing Blacks and Whites socially, some Whites will begin acting like Blacks, and the average moral tone of White society will decline.

They can understand that if you force White students to go to school with Blacks and then try to maintain the pretense that Blacks are just as capable as Whites, you must lower scholastic standards and thereby keep White students from reaching their full potential.

They know that if you pass so-called “free trade” laws, which allow industries in non-White countries with extremely low wages, countries like China and Mexico, to compete with American industries, pretty soon you’ll bankrupt the American industries and put many Americans out of work. And they can understand that if you permit Jews to get control of the mass media of news and entertainment in your country, and along with that a dominating influence on the political process and government policy, you’re in big trouble. You leave yourself open to all of the aforementioned ills and a whole Pandora’s box of others besides.

They can understand, in other words, that if people permit their government to adopt the policies the American government has adopted during the past 50 years, they will reduce themselves to the condition of the American people today: their civilization in a precipitous decline, their public and private morality in a shambles, their future mortgaged, and an assortment of non-White minorities in the process of foreclosing on that future.

This is something that most of our fellow citizens should be capable of understanding. Instead, they’ve let themselves be persuaded, primarily by the controlled media, that they should ignore their own reason and pretend that everything is A-OK.

Or, if they are so fed up with conditions that they just can’t pretend any longer that there’s nothing wrong, they still won’t face the facts squarely and accept the obvious answers, because they don’t want to be racists. And so they pretend that a switch from the Democrats to the Republicans will fix everything.

But, you know, somebody has to be willing to announce the fact that the emperor is naked. Even if it’s not polite. Even if it hurts a lot of people’s feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that the emperor’s new suit is the very height of fashion, someone has to come right out and say, “Hey, momma, look! The man has no clothes on!”

Not just me. A lot of us have to say that. A lot of us have to bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth. It’s important. Much more than the state of our economy and the quality of our schools and the crime problem depends on it. In the long run, everything depends on our preferring what is true to what is fashionable—preferring it enough to speak out for it.

I don’t expect everyone to do that. I know that most people will continue being the way they always have been. But it doesn’t take everyone in order to make a difference. It only takes a few. It only took one small boy to open everyone’s eyes to the emperor’s foolishness—one small boy to persuade all the townspeople that they really were seeing what they thought they were seeing.

So I’m counting on those of you who occasionally wear mismatched socks. I’m counting on you to say, “By god, I am right. The government and the media are wrong. And the right thing for me to do is to speak up now, regardless of whose feelings I hurt.” You do that—you keep looking at the world with open eyes and not being afraid to come to your own conclusions about what’s good and what’s bad—and you tell people about what you see.

You tell them, and many of them will open their eyes and look too. Don’t let the controlled media intimidate you. Don’t let the government push you around. We’re the ones who are right, not them.

You stand with me, and be honest with me, and speak out with me, and together we’ll begin pushing back some of the evil which has been taking over our world. We’ll begin building a better world together.

I’m counting on you. Thanks for listening.

January, 1995

Categories
George Lincoln Rockwell Individualism Real men Sponsor William Pierce

Where are the Syssitias?

“You can’t fight jewish tribalism with white individualism.”

—Alex Linder

 
In ancient Greece, notably among peoples of Dorian blood, i.e., pure white Aryans, and especially among the Spartans and Cretans, the custom that full citizens should eat the chief meal of the day in a public mess was called Syssitia. I first read about the Syssitias, or mandatory dining club of fifteen or less men, in the online book Esparta y su Ley published in the Spanish site Evropa Soberana (that I translated to English here).

Last year I was shocked to learn, after a street meeting of the British National Party that I attended right outside London, that the BNP had no headquarters or a house for its members. Unlike Greece’s Golden Dawn, there are no “Syssitias,” or guilds, for the most dedicated Briton combatants. (About a dozen of those who attended the meeting, myself including, had no choice but going to a pub after the event.) I later learned that the National Front used to have a house in England; not anymore.

Well, well… Wouldn’t you agree with me that, after a few years of working like atomized individuals who don’t even know each other’s faces or voices, and often with international distances separating us, the internet is utterly demoralizing? Wouldn’t our moral skyrocket if we could count with a safe place for the proper Männerbund such as those in the rigorously heterosexual Spartan army guilds? (again, cf. the translated book about Sparta).

glr

We need a home for the most energetic and fanatic soldiers of the 14 words. It would suit the perfect candidate: the “lost kid” that the anti-white System had destroyed. (Unlike this kind of adolescents, bourgeois people are unsuitable: Mussolini, Hitler and now Golden Dawn figured that out. In the words of Commander Rockwell, “A National Socialist is someone who wants to save his race. A conservative is someone who wants to save his money.”) Isn’t it objectionable that the old guard, potentially capable of saving such lost Aryans, are not doing their best? Shouldn’t we try to get a shelter for potential soldiers recruiting among the working classes, or at the very least try to live within a maximum driving distance of fifteen minutes between each other? Who among my visitors is willing to move to form such a guild?

Any white country could serve this purpose, although there are special restrictions in occupied nations like Germany. Unlike most white nationalists, who are mere reactionaries, revolutionary Harold Covington has urged whites to move to the American Northwest and join what he calls the Northwest Front. Unfortunately, before Covington became known as a novelist he was known as a defamer of nationalist leaders. His character disqualifies him for a commander of future guerrilla warfare, after the dollar crashes. The Northwest Front discarded, this is my second question: Which wealthy white might be willing to sponsor the project (renting or purchasing a house)?

What shocked me last year in a bus with the dozen or so nationalist Britons after the meeting was, as I said, that they told me the BNP had not even one house in the whole UK. My guess is that in this darkest hour for the fair race, unlike the sponsoring that Mussolini and Hitler obtained (and apparently the embryonic National Front) there is no sponsor willing to fund a new political party based on racial preservation. If I am wrong—if you believe there’s indeed such a wealthy person—please contact me:

cesartort (at) yahoo.com

I have no illusions. But where there is a will there is a way—even if it is the will of only two or three fanatically committed priests of the 14 words with no sponsor at all!

It is a pity that Rockwell and Pierce could not find a legitimate inheritor for their respective groups, although in the case of Rockwell it is understandable for his premature death. Regarding Pierce, in and English restaurant-pub Arthur Kemp told me that the most serious error in Pierce’s career was rejecting the formation of a political party to fight in the real world (something that Rockwell so hard tried to do).

Let me put it this way: Unlike those who presently fly the Confederate flag throughout Dixie—again: reactionaries, not revolutionaries—, following Rockwell’s methods would place a new NS party immediately in the spotlight of the most vicious Western media. I know that such group would be forbidden in Germany, but when was the last time that uniformed fascists marched in the US? And in the UK?

I also met Jez Turner last year, the director of the London Forum. OK: he was not in uniform during the street demonstration earlier this month. Originally they were going to, provocatively, hold it in the Jewish area of London, Golders Green, but the MP for the area notified the Prime Minister David Cameron about the “neonazi” demonstration and pressure was brought on the police to deny the “Nazis” their right to demonstrate. So they moved the demo to outside Downing Street, where David Cameron lives.

On the other hand, and with Nazi uniforms, decades ago Rockwell did the same in the very heart of the anti-white regime, Washington D.C., also complaining about Jewish power. He got immediate TV attention—negative of course, but his purpose was recruiting adepts. William Pierce wrote:

The first step was general recognition. His earlier conviction that that goal must be attained at the expense of every other consideration was now stronger than ever. Thus, instead of following the natural urge to dissociate National Socialism from the Hollywood image that Jewry had been building for it for more than three decades, he temporarily threw all hopes of “respectability”—even among other National Socialists—aside and set about turning to his own advantage all the Jews’ previous efforts.

Toward this end he deliberately pinned on himself the label “Nazi” rather than “National Socialist,” using this bit of journalistic jargon which had been coined by the enemy during the early days of struggle in Germany, a term looked upon by National Socialists with about the same feeling that convinced Marxists must look upon the designation “commie” or “pinko”. Behind this step—one which was to cause much misunderstanding and suspicion in days to come—was the cold-blooded realization that a strutting, shouting uniform-wearing, Hollywood-style “Nazi” was vastly more newsworthy, had vastly more “shock value,” than any mere National Socialist.

Pierce’s tribute to Rockwell is a must-read to understand what I have in mind. After a couple of paragraphs, Pierce added:

Despite the news quarantine imposed on him, despite beatings and jailings, despite a chronic lack of funds, despite serious personnel problems, and despite a thousand other troubles and difficulties, his campaign to gain public recognition made steady progress. Newspapers found it impossible to completely avoid mentioning his brash and daring exploits; editors and columnists found irresistible the temptation to denounce or “expose” him. Even radio and television emcees, ever on the prowl for sensation, yielded to temptation and defied the ban on publicity for Rockwell.

The image of George Lincoln Rockwell and the America Nazi Party created by the mass media for public consumption was, of course, a grossly distorted one. Rockwell had succeeded in forcing the media, more or less against their will, to give him publicity.

And a few paragraphs later:

Rockwell’s original program was divided into three phases. The first phase, beginning in March, 1959, was to be a phase of provocative but essentially non-constructive activity, intended to generate publicity and build a public image, no matter how distorted. The second phase was to be a cadre-building phase, during which a strong, disciplined, effective, professional National Socialist organization was to be built and capabilities in propaganda and organizing developed to a high degree. The third phase was to be one of mass organization.

Phase one was masterfully executed. Rockwell proved himself an outstanding tactician in the rough-and-tumble game of smashing through the Jewish blackout barrier.

Phase two, attracting a few idealists to constitute the skeleton of an organizational structure started to be successful, and—who knows?—, hadn’t Rockwell been murdered phase three might have become reality…

Alas, since the fire in Rockwell’s torch was extinguished after the assassination, presently we would have to walk all the way through phase one—as Mussolini and Hitler also did. I imagine myself with a uniformed group picketing during this phase, reciting well-planned slogans about the Hellstorm Holocaust or the Holodomor that the typical man of the street has never, ever heard of. Wouldn’t this risky business be more fun, and heroic, than staying at your mom’s basement in the vain hope that the Luftwaffe key-commandos of your computer will make a difference?

Fact is, whether we follow Rockwell’s tactics or not, would-be soldiers badly need Boys-only, Syssitia-like guilds in every major city of the West.

_____________

P.S.: Since this entry is mostly about the two questions in bold-type, please post off-topic comments elsewhere.

Categories
Currency crash William Pierce

Ray of hope

If the economy slips badly, there will be hell to pay. More and more people will listen to the dissidents.

—William Pierce,
“Get Set for War,” 1996.

Categories
Feminism Kali Yuga Sexual "liberation" William Pierce Women

Feminism

wlp_bas_relief

Excerpted from a 1996 interview
with William Pierce by Kevin Strom:

 
Feminism is just another exercise in reality denial, which has become such a common pastime. There are too many people out there who seem to believe that if we pretend that men and women are the same, they really will be; that if we pretend there are no differences between Blacks and Whites except skin color, the differences will disappear; that if we pretend that homosexuality is a normal, healthy condition, it will be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s true, of course, that some women might be perfectly happy as corporate raiders or professional knife fighters, just as some men have willingly adapted to the New World Order by becoming less aggressive and more “sensitive.” But it doesn’t work that way for normal men and women.

What the normal man really wants and needs is not just a business partner and roommate of the opposite sex, but a real woman whom he can protect and provide for. And what a normal woman really wants and needs with every fiber of her being, regardless of how much feminist propaganda she’s soaked up, is a real man, who can love and protect her and provide for her and their children.

If she’s watched too much television and has let herself be persuaded that what she wants instead of a strong, masculine man is a sensitive wimp who’ll let her wear the trousers in the family half the time, she’s headed for a severe collision with the reality of her own nature. She’ll end up making herself very neurotic, driving a few men into male chauvinism, and becoming a social liability. Our society just can’t afford any more of that sort of foolishness. If feminism were only making individuals unhappy, I wouldn’t be very concerned about it. I’ve always believed that people were entitled to make themselves as unhappy as they wanted to. But unfortunately, it’s wrecking our society and weakening our race, and we must put a stop to it soon.

A society which forces women out of the home and into offices and factories is not a healthy society. I’d like for our society to be changed so that it’s possible once again for mothers to stay at home with their children, the way they did back before the Second World War, back before the New World Order boys got their hands on our economy and launched their plan to bring the living standard of the average American wage earner down to the average Mexican level. I think many will want to stay home when it’s possible to do so. And I am sure that if we provide the right role models for women, most will want to. If we regain control of our television industry, of our news and entertainment and advertising industries, we can hold up quite a different model of the ideal woman from the one being held up today.

Understanding really must come first. After understanding comes organization. And I should add this: Whatever flies in the face of reality is inherently self-destructive. But we cannot wait for this disease to burn itself out. The toll will be too great. We have to stand up against it and oppose it now. We have to change people’s attitudes about feminism being fashionable.

Categories
Mein Kampf (book) William Pierce

1968 Pierce article

The necessity of staying legal

wlp_bas_relief

“Revolution & legality”
Editorial by Dr. William L. Pierce
National Socialist World Journal
Winter 1968

 
Two classes of concepts which are fundamentally different in nature, yet often confused, are those having to do with doctrine and those concerned with tactics. The former are independent of changing circumstances and conditions; the latter are strongly dependent on these things. We make an extremely grave error when we treat a doctrinal point as if it were a tactical matter, but we also make a serious error when we assign to some tactical consideration the attributes of a point of doctrine.

NS-worldThe National Socialist movement has generally been considered to be an element of the “right wing,” albeit an extreme element. Indeed, we apparently share a number of things with other right-wing elements, such as anti-Marxism, a respect for tradition, and support for the forces of law and order, That last has meant, among other things, that we have constrained ourselves to the use of “legal” methods only in our struggle.

Now, whereas our anti-Marxism is implicit in our National Socialist doctrine, our self-restriction to legal methods is tactical in nature.1 Because the movement has, however, since 1923, insisted upon “legality” in its relationship with constituted authority, some may have fallen into the error of thinking that this insistence stems from doctrinal considerations about the sanctity of “law and order.” Under certain conditions this error can lead to disastrous consequences. Since the occurrence of these “certain conditions” in the foreseeable future is by no means a merely academic possibility, it may be worthwhile to examine this problem in detail.

In terms of the most fundamental National Socialist criterion, the question is: Is the support of the constituted authority and the maintenance of law and order in the best long-term interest of the race? And the self-evident answer is, that this depends upon the nature and the aims of the particular constituted authority in question. For while it is true that when a State is fulfilling its proper function as defender and champion of the racial interests of its people the aims of race and law and order become identical, those aims no longer coincide when the State strays from its proper role. In this respect the teachings of the Leader are quite clear:

The State is a means to an end. This end is the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually homogeneous living creatures. This preservation itself includes, firstly, subsistence as a race and thus permits the free development of all powers slumbering within that race… States that do not serve this purpose are mistakes, nay, monstrosities. The fact of their existence does not alter this any more than the success of a crew of buccaneers can justify piracy… We must make a sharp distinction between the State as a vessel and the race as its content. This vessel has a purpose only so long as it can preserve and protect the content; otherwise it is worthless.2

Strictly speaking, only a National socialist State can fully satisfy our criterion: any other State formation can only approximate the ideal role of the State as defender and champion of the racial interests of its people; and in this light the present day Western democracies can only be described as monstrosities.

If a State can be carried through a peaceful evolution toward its proper role, then this course should be followed, for we certainly do not seek a state of anarchy and chaos as an end in itself. There are always dangers inherent in such a situation: more than one revolution has gone astray during its violent phase, emerging from the conflict with an altogether different character than upon entering.

On the other hand, neither must peaceful revolution be sought as an end in itself. Where it does not provide a realistic and practical course of action, it must be abandoned without hesitation for other means.

Considering the present array of State formations with which we are faced, the question which naturally arises is this: is it conceivable that any of these degenerate and racially destructive entities can be smoothly transformed into a National Socialist State? Or must we think in terms of a total leveling of the present structures before we can hope to begin building a new structure on sound foundations? Whatever our answer, it must be based only upon an evaluation of the possibilities inherent in the various paths leading to our ultimate racial goals, and not upon any false conception of our obligations toward any presently existing State authority.

Again, the Leader has spelled this out for us:

State authority cannot exist as an end in itself, or every tyranny in this world would be sacred and untouchable. If, by the instrument of governmental authority, a people is being driven to its destruction, then rebellion is not only the right but the duty of every member of that people… In general, it must never be forgotten that the highest purpose of man’s existence is not the maintenance of a State, let alone of a government, but the preservation of its own kind. Let that be in danger of suppression or destruction, and the question of legality is but subordinate. Then, though the methods of the ruling power be a thousand times “legal,” the self-preservation of the oppressed is always the noblest justification for a struggle using any and every weapon.3

Why, then, the insistence up till now on “legality” in our struggle? The answer is that we are faced with the same difficulty today that confronted the Movement forty-five years ago in Germany: the enemy, with the repressive powers of the State at his disposal, is far stronger physically than we. In any shooting match with the State authority, we are bound to lose decisively, just as we lost on November 9, 1923.

The fact that the anarchist elements among the Jews are able to use illegal means with relative impunity in their assault upon “the Establishment” should not mislead us into thinking that the same tactics will work for us. In the first place, we do not have the allies in the Establishment that they have. We cannot provoke large-scale violence and disorder and receive a gentle slap on the wrist in reprisal, as they can. In the second place, we and they have entirely different aims. Since their purpose is, above all, to destroy the existing order of things, they have a much greater freedom of action than we have; they can carry out their purpose with a much looser organizational structure than we can ours, and thus they are relatively less susceptible to counterattack.

We are “legal” now because we dare not be otherwise; we are yet too weak to defy the State authority successfully. At the same time, as long as we are weak and ineffective the State feels no real threat from us, and, therefore, no pressing need to destroy us. But our relationship to the State is changing, and we are entering a new and critical phase of our development—one in which we are becoming too strong for the State to ignore, yet not strong enough to defend ourselves from its attacks. These attacks will progress from quasi-legal harassment, intimidation of our members and supporters, and interference with our mail to illegal arrests and criminal charges based on falsified evidence, the withdrawal of police protection, and—eventually—outlawry through special legislation. Whenever in the course of these developments we allow ourselves to be provoked into illegal counteraction, we provide the State with the powerful weapon of self-justification.

Yet, the conflict seems inevitable, for before our struggle is over each and every criminal comprising the System will have a pretty good idea just what fate awaits him at our hands. Very few are likely to deceive themselves into believing that we are “just another Party,” with which they can reach an “understanding” which will leave the System largely intact. They will almost certainly realize that a triumphant National Socialism will mean not only a permanent end to their whole way of life, but an end to life itself for many of them. This knowledge will not incline them to yield gracefully to us.

Despite what lies ahead, however, we must strenuously avoid yielding to the temptation to retaliate prematurely to the provocations that beset us. When we do take the very grave step of illegal action, it must only be because the further progress of the Movement demands it—not because we can no longer repress the urge to satisfy our thirst for vengeance or because irresponsible elements in the Movement have not been kept under close enough rein.

Thus, the key to success in the struggle ahead is self-discipline. While it is the time to be “legal” we must stolidly endure whatever the State sees fit to inflict upon us. And when it is time to revolt, we must be prepared to unleash all the furies of hell on the State until it yields.

W.L.P.

____________________________

  1. And our respect for tradition is often tactical rather than doctrinal; it makes a great deal of difference about which traditions we are talking.
  2. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, II, Chap. 2.
  3. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, I, chap. 3.