Dr. Pierce on Christian Morality

[Michael Olanich]

National Vanguard Magazine - December 1982
Letter to the Editor answered by Dr. Pierce

Hellfire and Brimstone

In the October issue Dr. Pierce has, indeed, shown that his "A New Morality for Us" is more unequivocally on the side of our race than is Dennis Whiting's "One Morality for All," but one must wonder if his appeal to an "underlying purpose of all life" is less of a theological concept than Whiting's Christian deity. Most people of our race, after they have lost their Christian faith, are not ready to be bemused by any notion of evolutionary purpose; rather, they quickly devolve to the kind of mad-dog individualism, extolled by libertarians, which is as much to blame for failure to defend our race as is misplaced altruism.

Christianity, at least, was brutally blunt in its reason for commanding faith: Believe or your soul will endure eternal torments in hell. What threat (or promise, for that matter) can be presented to those who do not see why they should care about the fate of their race now or ten years from now, much less, say, a hundred years after their deaths?

-B.N.
Little Rock, AR

Editor's Reply:

Two interesting points are raised: To what extent has the Christian theology of punishment and reward been responsible for the moral behavior of Whites in the past, and how can a new morality be imposed without a similar theology?

It is true that a century ago, when the West was almost entirely Christian - and most Christians were White - a generally higher standard of personal conduct was met than today, when Christianity has lost both its status as a predominantly White religion and a substantial portion of its former White adherents.

It is also true that many of those who have shucked off the old Christian superstitions today are worse-behaved than their contemporaries who still adhere to Christianity. Everyone has observed those unlovely individuals who have used their liberation from Christianity as an excuse to "liberate" themselves from every moral restraint on their behavior and every responsibility to anyone but themselves. Most of these call themselves "libertarians" or "elitists," but, unfortunately, some have attached themselves to our camp, where they clearly do not belong.

I do not believe that this problem is primarily one of theology, however. In the past, fear of fire and brimstone may have had some effect, but it was almost entirely restricted to ritual. That is, visions of hellfire may have helped church attendance a bit on Sunday morning and persuaded believers that it was important to memorize the Lord's Prayer or to know when to genuflect. But it was not the principal determinant of their behavior.

Morality was much more strongly supported by social rather than by religious sanctions. A man felt it was important to keep his word because he wanted self-respect and the respect of his neighbors, not because he feared eternal damnation. Sexual behavior was more discreet for the same reason: A girl valued her virginity, not because she thought it would improve her chances on Judgment Day, but because she was concerned for her reputation in the community and her marriageability.

The same principle holds today: It is social custom and peer pressure, not Christian doctrine, which directly determine the morality of Christians; doctrine acts only indirectly.

As an example, consider the U.S. tobacco industry, which is centered in the Bible Belt. No Christian theologian can sincerely condone the production and sale of a habit-forming, carcinogenic drug, knowing that such activity condemns tens of thousands of other Christians to an agonizing death every year. Yet I would bet that close to half of the tobacco company executives who lobbied vigorously to keep cancer warnings off the cigarette packages they sell are churchgoing Christians. I know that most of the farmers who grow tobacco and sell it to the cigarette producers are.

These people, many of whom consider Playboy magazine sinful, go about their deadly business with apparently untroubled consciences. They do so because the community, primarily for economic reasons, tolerates it, and the churches, unwilling to buck long-established custom, have not explicitly condemned it. Fear of hellfire might keep a lot of them from spitting on a Bible or wearing hats in church, but not from earning a living in a way which is enormously harmful to the health of their fellow citizens.

One may condemn them for moral obtuseness, but that misses the point. Most men are and always have been morally obtuse.

The point is this: Morality suffers today, not because many Whites no longer believe in the heaven and hell of Christianity, but because the social order is crumbling under the impact of "pluralism." A religion may supply the basic moral imperatives to a society, but it is the society itself which translates them into the behavior of ordinary men and women. If Western society were still racially and culturally homogeneous and the social order strong, people would guide their behavior according to the accepted social norms, whatever they happened to be, with or without the threat of hell.

Likewise, until a new social order is established which institutionalizes a race-based morality, many who pay lip service to such a morality will, in fact, not actually guide their lives by it, but instead will continue to live amorally. Once such a morality has been institutionalized, however, theology will play a relatively minor role in determining behavior.

In conclusion, religious doctrine is of fundamental importance in determining which values, beliefs, and behavioral norms become institutionalized in a society, but social instincts are much more important than any theology of reward and punishment in compelling men and women to lead moral lives.

End of Article.

[Michael Olanich]

Here is a related piece on the subject I recently read by Dr. Pierce from early 1982. However, I am unsure whether it was originally in National Vanguard or commentary from an NA bulletin in '82. Nevertheless, it is informative and expounds on the original Alliance position when it comes to Christianity. This article can also be found on The William Luther Pierce Blog Spot by clicking here: http://williamlutherpierce.blogspot.com ... -1982.html

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

On Christianity

By Dr. William Pierce

The National Office has received a few complaints (fewer than expected) from members about what has been perceived as an anti-Christian bias in recent issues of National Vanguard. One member has resigned.

The complaints fall into two general categories: 1. “I am a Christian. Why are you attacking my religion?” and 2. “I am not a Christian, but many White people are. We must all stick together. To attack Christianity is divisive.”

It should first be noted that the National Alliance is not primarily a religious organization – at least, not in the usual sense of the word, although most members are able to recognize the strong spiritual element in the Alliance’s message. Second, it should be noted that the National Office is fully aware of the sensitive nature of the Christian religion, and for that reason National Vanguard avoided the question for a long time.

This avoidance, however, was in conflict with the Alliance’s fundamental obligation to deal forthrightly with all issues of vital concern to the welfare and progress of our race. This obligation where Christianity is concerned has become especially difficult to ignore during the past few months, with the growing strength of the Moral Majority and other right-wing Christian groups and their active participation in political matters. The leader of that organization, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, has been outspoken in his support of Zionism, and he was recently given a Zionist award by Jewish leaders. There exists a clear conflict of interests for any Alliance member who supports such an organization, and the Alliance member should not compromise in matters of this sort.

This is not the place to deal at length with details of religious history and doctrine; National Vanguard will continue to have articles on these topics from time to time, and there will be such an article in the April issue. Here, however, a few things will be mentioned briefly for the guidance of Alliance members.

The most important single fact concerning Christianity with which the Alliance must deal is that all the major Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant, liberal and fundamentalist, have openly aligned themselves with the enemies of the White race. The Catholics and the liberal Protestants are vigorously supporting racial mixing, while the fundamentalist Protestants are strong boosters of Zionism. These alignments will become increasingly important factors in our struggle in the years ahead, as the churches become more and more involved in social and political issues. The Jews have already announced their intention to mobilize fundamentalist Christians in their effort to maintain control of the U.S. government. The Alliance cannot remain silent in the face of such developments, for the sake of White unity or anything else.

No honest, conscientious Alliance member can maintain his membership in the Alliance and also in an organization which is fundamentally opposed to the goals and principles of the Alliance. The former member who belongs to the Moral Majority acted correctly in resigning from the Alliance, and the same applies to others: Any Alliance member who is also a member of a church or other Christian organization which supports racial mixing or Zionism should decide now where he stands, and he should then resign either from his church or from the Alliance.

In fact, the great majority of Alliance members who originally had some Christian church affiliation have already made their decisions and left the churches. Those members who continue to consider themselves Christians either have no church affiliation or belong to very small, independent churches which have pro-White doctrines. It is primarily these members who have objected to the recent treatment of Christianity in National Vanguard. “It’s all right to attack the big churches,” they say, “because those churches have been subverted by the Jews — but don’t attack Christianity itself. What the churches are preaching today isn’t really Christianity.”

Well, far be it from the National Alliance to decide what is really Christianity. Christians have been fighting with one another over that question for the better part of the last 2,000 years without arriving at an answer acceptable to all parties concerned. From a strictly practical viewpoint, however, we must use the word “Christianity” in National Vanguard in the sense in which it is understood by the general public and by the great majority of readers. In that sense, “Christianity” means the lumped together doctrines of the major Christian churches, without regard for all the little quibbles which separate Catholics from Protestants, or ultra-liberal Presbyterians from Holy Rollers and teetotaling Baptists.

Beyond this question of whether it is the race-mixers and Zionists or the pro-Whites who are the real Christians, there are the troubling issues of the non-European origin of Christianity: of the great body of Christian ethical doctrines which are accepted by nearly all the churches but which conflict with White spirituality and the needs for White survival, such as the Sermon on the Mount; and of the body of Old Testament and its Jewish mythology — such as the creation myth of Genesis; the “chosen people” myth, and Isaiah’s ravings against all non-Jews, together with his prophecies that the Jews will eventually rule the world and all other races will serve them — which comes along with most versions of Christianity.

All three of the aforementioned issues are relevant to the mission of the National Alliance, and they cannot be ignored: We must look to our racial roots, and we must rid ourselves of alien influences, including those from the Levant; we must govern ourselves by White values and ethical doctrines, and by no others; and we must concern ourselves with truth alone.

A number of men and women who have understood the first two of these issues but who have, nevertheless, still considered themselves both Christian and pro-White have attempted to resolve the contradiction by denying the Jewish origins of Christianity and by choosing interpretations of Christian ethical doctrines which differ markedly from the commonly accepted ones. They have asserted that not only was Jesus not a Jew, but neither were the people living in Palestine during the Old Testament and the New Testament periods Jews. These people, they say, were actually the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons and other peoples of Europe.

One can argue either way about Jesus, because the historical evidence is insufficient to support a firm conclusion. But the assertion that the people of the Old Testament or the people of Palestine among whom the Christian movement began were Anglo-Saxons, or anything but Semites, for the most part, is demonstrably false. Such assertions can only be maintained by persons who close their eyes to the clear historical record, just as a belief in the creation myth of Genesis can only be maintained by persons who refuse to accept the clear scientific evidence to the contrary.

If, despite everything above, there are Alliance members or prospective Alliance members who still consider themselves Christians, then it must be in the sense that they value the specifically White elements of Christianity which have been added since its origins — the great art, the great music, and the great architecture produced by White men during the centuries in which the Christian churches ruled Europe – and that they also share the White spiritual feelings which have been eloquently expressed by many men and women who were Christians and who applied the adjective “Christian” to feelings which, in fact, came from deep within the White race-soul and existed long before the advent of the Christian church.

Such Christians we can call our comrades and be proud to have in our ranks.

W.L.P.

[Will Williams]

Not sure why this topic is getting an inordinate number of views, but we're glad it is. Such an important issue.

To answer your question, Michael, "On Christianity" was Dr. Pierce's commentary in a 1982 National Alliance BULLETIN, October, I beleve. I would send a copy of this page to members to clarify the Alliance's position to them before we came out with the National Alliance Membership Handbook. I transcribed it in 2004 and posted it then for the first time to the Internet (@ Vanguard News Network).

The Jews love Christianity - Ralph Perier (Liberty Bell magazine, August 1980)

[Cosmotheist]

Not sure why this topic is getting an inordinate number of views, but we're glad it is. Such an important issue.

To answer your question, Michael, "On Christianity" was Dr. Pierce's commentary in a 1982 National Alliance BULLETIN, October, I beleve. I would send a copy of this page to members to clarify the Alliance's position to them before we came out with the National Alliance Membership Handbook. I transcribed it in 2004 and posted it then for the first time to the Internet (@ Vanguard News Network).

The Jews love Christianity - Ralph Perier (Liberty Bell magazine, August 1980)

Hello Will,

Perhaps, you are just getting alot of those folks from the "DS" viewing this topic after your comment there?
See:
http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=998

Any group that is "promoting" any version of "Christianity" to our folk and to our White Race is part of the problem
and is NOT part of the SOLUTION: to free our folk and our White Race from that "spiritual poison" distilled from the
mind of the Jews and foisted upon the gullible of our kind for literally thousands of years! Cosmotheism is the "real"
religion that unites the inherent "spirit" of the Cosmos, within all of us, with our own natural racial faustian "spirit".

As far as that poll there at "DS" goes, a great proportion are possible likely candidates for our Cosmotheism and if
they are "racially sound": "Cultural Christians", Atheists, Pagans, and Agnostics. Hard-core "Christians" are unlikely
to be good candidates and are as difficult to "reason out of it" as would be any homosexuals from their perversions.

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

[Michael Olanich]

There are some relevant quotations from Dr. Pierce in The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds which I think are pertinent to this topic. I will go through my copy and post them when I find them.

[Michael Olanich]

ON CHRISTIANITY IN DR. WILLIAM PIERCE'S OWN WORDS:

Page 207 in "Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds"

"In fact, I'm not a Christian at all. I don't put any stock into that."

Page 260 in "Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds"

"Christianity has a number of elements that are very destructive to our people. One of them is egalitarianism. You know: 'the meek shall inherit the earth,' the last shall be first, and the first shall be last.' and so on. It's this whole Sermon-on-the-mount idea of leveling and putting people down and pulling down those who are on top of the heap regardless of how they got there. It is a fundamental part of Christian doctrine, and I think it is very destructive of any kind of ordered society."

"When you look at Christianity you have to get beyond the requirements and rituals-- you shall be baptized, you shall observe the marriage sacrament, and so forth-- and look at underlying things, like the egalitarian, bolshevik message in this religion, which is really dangerous and has helped move us to this democratic age."

"And then there is the universalistic message in Christianity. That we are all alike, that fundamentally there is no difference among people, that the only thing that counts is whether you are in or out of Jesus' flock. It's the 'we are all one in Christ Jesus' idea-- man and woman, Lord, that business. All of that is fundamentally opposed to the evolutionary view that I have and which I think is necessary to progress. The truth of the matter is that we aren't all one, and we are different from one another, and some individuals and cultures are better than others. Anything that obscures that reality and its implications holds things back."

"Another idea inherent in Christianity is that what we do here on earth doesn't really matter. This life is just a testing ground; the real action will go on someplace else, after our death-- that line of thought. And then there is the notion that we don't have to really stay on the case because God has everything under control. He is watching us all the time and looking out for us, and He can push this button or that one and make anything happen He wants. We aren't in control, and in any case we don't need to be because it's not really our responsibility, it's God's. I have talked to many Christians of good intelligence who accept this idea. But to me, it comes down to an abdication of responsibility."

"And then there is all the superstition and craziness in Christianity. When they had their chance, the Christians burned free thinkers, stifled intellectual development for centuries, and let people off to those suicidal Crusades. So I see Christianity as more than a humorous aberration; it's a really dangerous one. And at the same time that I say that I acknowledge that many if not most Christians are basically reasonable and decent people. It's just that they haven't thought things all the way through. They aren't the problem-- it's the doctrine."

I assume you agree with Simpson that Christianity is an alien religion? (Robert Griffin)

"I do. The European spirit is much more expressed in the pagan tradition of northern Europe. In that tradition, there was much more of the idea that man is responsible for the world around him. He is responsible for his own actions. And he's answerable to nobody but himself........"

Dr. William Pierce

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t854806/

[Michael Olanich]

Losers, Hobbyists, and the “Movement”; By Dr. William Pierce

Editorial from National Alliance BULLETIN, March 2000

An interesting psychological phenomenon on which I have commented on in several issues of the BULLETIN is that displayed by people who send hostile letters to the National Office saying, in effect: “You people claim to be Christians, but you ignore the teachings of the Bible, which says that all races are the same. Don’t you even know that Jesus was a Jew?” They have had the idea planted in their heads that the Alliance is some sort of Christian organization, presumably by Jewish propaganda linking us to Christian Identity and Catholic traditionalist groups, which also are on the Jews’ hit list. Reading our material or listening to one of my broadcasts should persuade them otherwise, but it doesn’t. It probably took quite a bit of effort by the Jews to pound the idea into their heads, and it’ll take dynamite to get it out.

Unfortunately, one can observe a similar phenomenon in many people nominally on our side, even in some Alliance members. I have announced over and over again our policy toward other organizations, and I nevertheless continue to receive letters to the effect: “All of us in the ‘movement’ must stick together. We should unite with all of the other patriotic organizations, and then we’ll be much stronger. Etc.” To me this view indicates either hobbyism or a serious deficiency in the writer’s powers of discrimination. If you don’t remember what hobbyism is, re-read section 3.c.iii.2 of your copy of the Membership Handbook.

The Internet has given many inadequate people the ability to pretend to be more than they are. Any troubled teenager or unemployed alcoholic can get a web site, set himself up as a phone-booth Fuhrer, and begin collecting “followers,” and many do. They are the ones to whom the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Southern Poverty Law Center are referring when they announce that “the number of ‘hate groups’ on the Internet is now 457, up 23 per cent since 1999.” Two outstanding examples are a teenaged Jew named Andy Greenbaum, who used the name “Bo Decker” and set up an “organization” he called “Knights of Freedom”; and a professional disseminator of disinformation named Harold Covington (a.k.a. “Winston Smith”). Greenbaum self-destructed last year, when he announced a giant march in Washington and only two of his “followers” showed up for the march. Covington occasionally still makes Internet attacks on the Alliance, but he is far less prolific than he was a year or so ago.

There are dozens of others who are still active, however. One is a TV repairman in California named Tom Metzger, who publishes a tabloid addressed primarily to skinheads and prisoners called “White Aryan Resistance’ (“WAR”). Metzger promotes an ideology that is a blend of racial nationalism and class resentment, commonly called “national bolshevism.” Another, also in California, publishes a newsletter called “The Nationalist Observer.” Both are proponents of a “strategy” known as “leaderless resistance,” according to which, at the appropriate time, hundreds or even thousands of revolutionary cells, consisting of one to five patriots each, will materialize spontaneously and will overthrow the government by sabotaging or bombing government and media facilities and assassinating politicians, leading Jews, collaborators, and other enemies of our people. All of these cells will operate independently, without centralized organization or direction or infrastructure, so that it will be nearly impossible for the government to infiltrate them or spy on them, and the government never will know where or when they will strike next.

Actually, Metzger and other “leaderless resistance” advocates are not so much in favor of “leaderless resistance” as they are against any sort of organized activity. Their thesis is that any organized activity is certain to fail because it will be infiltrated by government informants and provocateurs, and that any racial patriot who joins an organization is a fool who is allowing the government to get his name on the blacklist for unspecified, but presumably severe, reprisals.

All of this theorizing takes place in the make-believe world of revolutionary hobbyism. In the real world, “leaderless resistance” is simply an excuse for losers, cowards, and shirkers to do nothing except talk to each other. Building an effective organization of any sort is difficult work, and those who don’t like work or who have tried to build an organization and failed often are resentful of any effort that shows signs of success. Their reasoning is, “I tried it and wasn’t successful; therefore, it can’t be done.” And the reason that nearly every organizational effort has failed has not been government spies or provocateurs; it has been the low quality of the human material in the organization. Certainly, the Alliance has never had any damage done to it by government agents. Every major difficulty we have had has been the consequence of bad judgment or bad behavior on the part of a member.

It’s always difficult working with people. It must be a real nightmare trying to run an organization that has no quality standards for membership and that maintains a flamboyant and sensationalist public image attractive to hooligans, drunken brawlers, criminals, sociopaths, and other losers.

The latest issue of Resistance Magazine (of which I am the publisher) had an article written by a professional soldier who pointed out the unworkability of “leaderless resistance.” Unfortunately, he mistakenly used the “Order” organized in 1984 by Robert Mathews as an example of why it doesn’t work. In fact, the “Order,” based on the fictional organization of the same name in The Turner Diaries, was a centralized organization with a strong leader. Because of the author’s slip, a few of the phone-booth Fuhrers, who already were resentful of the Alliance’s progress and were stung by the article’s undiplomatic treatment of their favorite excuse for their own failure, saw an opportunity to criticize the Alliance and seized it. They Xeroxed dozens of copies of the offending article and mailed them to everyone on their mailing lists, including the imprisoned surviving members of the “Order.” They wrote a letter to go with the Xeroxed article, and although Robert Mathews is not even named in the article, their letter said, in effect: “Look, look! Pierce is attacking Bob Mathews, our martyred hero! Isn’t that shameful?”

Seeing the article described as an attack on Robert Mathews led some of the readers to look at it that way, and they duly registered their own indignation. The phone-booth Fuhrers then posted everything to the Internet, where it was the most titillating subject for gossip among the hobbyists for several weeks. The term “movement” was frequently used by the hobbyists, as in: “Pierce has shown disrespect for a martyr of the ‘movement.’ He should be expelled from the ‘movement.’” Or: “No, no! We must have unity in the ‘movement.’”

It’s a little hard to say exactly what the term means to the Internet gossips. To most, it seems to be a clubby sort of concept which includes all of “us” and excludes everyone else. Although I have found the term useful in some contexts in the past, it probably should be abandoned because it has been so badly misused by the hobbyists. Really, what self respecting racial nationalist wants to be considered part of a “movement’ which includes all of the phone-booth Fuhrers, the Internet gossips, and an embarrassingly high quota of born losers?

It’s easy enough to understand this club mentality. As our society disintegrates under the onslaught of Jew-instigated multiculturalism, people look for something to hold onto: a sense of belonging, of community. We feel more secure when we have a sense of solidarity with others of like mind. A comforting sense of security is not the primary thing that Alliance members should be seeking, however. We want strength. We want new capabilities. We want to gain an advantage over the enemies of our people. We want anything which brings us closer to victory, whether it is comfortable or not.

The truth of the matter is, there’s not much advantage to be gained inside the “movement.” It is too heavily freighted with chronic losers, incurable hobbyists, phone-booth Fuhrers, and other defectives. Perhaps the “movement” is no worse than the general public in this regard, but we’re looking for the best and strongest people we can find, and we find them much more often outside the “movement” than inside it. It is time for all members who have been focused on the “movement” either to reorient themselves in an outward direction or to find another organization to devote themselves to. As our tempo and our work load increase, being in the Alliance will be less and less fun for those whose primary aim is to amuse themselves with “movement” gossip. And I will have less patience with hobbyists and with those who believe that the Alliance is part of the “movement.” Our aim is not to be the biggest and best organization in the “movement”; it is to leave the “movement” to its clubby introspection while we get on with the job of building a revolutionary infrastructure.

We respect our martyrs, and all of those who have shown courage or made sacrifices for our people, but we’ll build monuments to them after the revolution. Meanwhile, winning is all that we care about, not the fun of playing the game by “movement” rules.

W.L.P

* * *
Originally posted by Will Williams at https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t854806/.

[Michael Olanich]

What is Moral?

Free Speech - February 2002 - Volume VIII, Number 2
by Dr. William Pierce

A few days ago I spoke with a friend who is a historian and a writer and is interested in many of the things we discuss on these weekly broadcasts. He congratulated me on the growing influence of American Dissident Voices. He said:

"Many more people than you realize listen to your broadcasts. They mail the texts to many other people. I meet many people at universities and in other countries as well as here in southern California who listen to your broadcasts and talk about them with each other."

My response was: "Then where are these people when I need them? Why don't I hear from more of them? Don't they realize that I can't continue doing these broadcasts all by myself forever? The country is going down the drain, and all that these people you mention are doing is talking about my broadcasts and sitting on their hands. Why don't they help? Are they afraid that they'll be kicked out of the country club if they associate with me?"

My historian friend said that it isn't fear that keeps these people from contacting me; it is their moral concerns. In the past, he said, my broadcasts were very harsh, very brutal. I talked about ethnic cleansing and approved of genocide and other things that these people find shocking, he said. They won't support any cause unless they feel that it is a just cause. They think that I am willing to hurt too many people. They feel that I have no Christian constraints. They would rather commit suicide than become associated with an unjust cause, my friend told me.

I responded to him: "Don't these people believe that making a decent world for future generations of our people is a just cause? Don't they believe that preventing the extinction of our race and our civilization is a just cause?"

My friend didn't really have a good answer for that, but I gathered from his response that he believes my approach to our problems is too "rough," too uncivilized, too un-Christian for the people he talks with, and it makes them uncomfortable. Then he congratulated me on becoming more acceptable in the last year than I was before. He says that I do talk now about the issues in a way that is easier for these people to relate to, and he thinks that has a lot to do with the fact that more people are listening to the programs now and discussing them with their friends.

Since this conversation with my friend a little more than a week ago I've been thinking hard about what he said. I believe that I understand what he said, but I don't really agree with him. I don't really believe that it is very meaningful to say that Christian constraints make the academics and other perceptive people he knows hold back from the necessarily unpleasant solutions to our race's problems. In the first place, most of these people aren't really Christians. They were raised in a Christian environment, and Christian moral doctrine may still have a subconscious effect on them, but most of them are fairly intelligent and sophisticated people. I believe that a reasonably high percentage of the pilots and other military officers that the Bush government, and a long line of governments before that, have sent to blast Afghan villages to smithereens or to bomb a European city like Belgrade or to carpet-bomb German cities are Christians: a higher percentage, anyway, than among the academics and other people that my friend talks with. I also think that most of them have no qualms of conscience about what they do for a living. And these pilots, most of them, are not Neanderthal rednecks or bloody-minded sadists. They are university graduates who are loving husbands and caring fathers. In the past, Christians -- American Christians -- repeatedly have shown themselves quite capable of doing the most atrocious and bloody things without hesitation.

The key, I believe, is social rather than religious or moral. The concern, I believe, is not about whether a cause is "just" or not, whatever that means, but whether it is socially acceptable or not: that is, socially acceptable in the peer group to which the person belongs who claims to be concerned about the justness of my cause. To tell the truth, I don't believe that I have changed or moderated or "softened" my message during the past year. I always have tried to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and I don't hold back from stating unpleasant facts or conclusions any more today than I did a year ago.

I do try to avoid being unnecessarily offensive. I don't ordinarily use the word "nigger" in talking about racial matters, for example, because it makes so many people flinch, and I can be completely clear in what I want to say without using that word. But that is no more true today than it was five years ago. I've always tried to avoid being unnecessarily offensive.

I think that what has changed is not my message but the social environment. I believe that the social environment of most of the writers and professors and others who talk about my broadcasts but won't talk with me has shifted enough during the past couple of years so that hard facts about race and the Jews are a little more acceptable than before. I think that reality is not quite as déclassé as it was a year or two ago.

You know, I believe that I know these people about as well as anyone. I never was very fashion-conscious myself, even before I began saying unfashionable things. I never worried much about whether I was wearing the latest style in cuff links or neckties, and occasionally my socks wouldn't match. I probably would have been classified as a "nerd" by most fashion-conscious people today. But I was a university professor, and I generally behaved in a socially approved manner. I could even figure out which fork to use for the salad in most cases, and I didn't slurp my soup or wipe my greasy fingers on my shirt or the tablecloth.

If there was a difference between me and most of my peers, I think it was this: they took the conventions and taboos by which we lived a little more seriously than I did. I think that I appreciate these things more now than I did then. Now I understand that conventions and good manners and politeness and gentlemanly behavior are important in a structured, well functioning society. But they are not the most important things. Honesty and facing reality without evasion are more important than politeness.

In the early 1960s, we all saw the society in which we lived coming unraveled. We all could look ahead and see that very bad things were likely to be encountered just down the road if present trends continued. But it was not entirely acceptable to talk frankly about these things. That is, it made many of my peers uncomfortable to talk frankly about where racial integration was taking America. It made them even more uncomfortable to talk about the Jewish role in the dangerous policies being pursued by the government. I think that social conditioning was more important than Christianity or any other ethical considerations in imposing these constraints.

We didn't feel personally threatened by Blacks, and the people who were personally threatened were the White manual workers at the bottom of the White social ladder, who reacted to the threat in ways that seemed very vulgar and uncouth to us. To us, Blacks were still the underdogs, and it seemed uncharitable to most of my peers for Whites to attack Blacks for wanting to better their positions. The media-generated image of sweaty, unshaven Ku Klux Klansmen and other rednecks screaming insults at peacefully marching Black demonstrators was an unpleasant one that made us squirm. We certainly didn't want to put ourselves in the same boat with the Ku Kluxers and other working-class Whites who were behaving in such an ungentlemanly manner.

I not only understood the feeling of my peers back in the 1960s; I shared it. Standing on a street corner and screaming insults at Blacks or shouting "White power!" while shaking one's fist or giving a Roman salute was not only rude and impolite, it was low class. I believe that was what made us most uncomfortable. Despite all of the pretensions to democracy and egalitarianism, America was and still is a very class-conscious society. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. I think that in a well-ordered society it is reasonable to expect the more privileged and influential members of the society to have a stricter and more refined code of behavior and to hold themselves apart from those with less-strict codes. And in the early 1960s America still had a reasonably well-ordered society.

As I already mentioned, I was a little less reverent toward things such as the polite behavior expected of academics and professionals than most of my peers were, and so while many of them joined conservative think tanks and respectably conservative debating societies, I decided to say what I thought needed to be said, polite or not. The consequence of that decision was that the Jewish media immediately began doing a hatchet job on me, portraying me as the sort of person that any member of polite society would be ashamed to associate with. And so I spent the next 35 years as an outcast of sorts. It didn't bother me a great deal, because the luxury of being able to tell the whole truth was a bit intoxicating. Of course, I always tried to persuade other professionals to tell the whole truth too, and a few of them did, but not many were willing to take that step.

That's beginning to change a little now, but not, I think, because I have become more polite or more moral. I think that it's because the threat that we all could see way back in the 1960s is no longer distant and theoretical. It is looming darkly over all of us now, not just over the manual workers at the bottom of the White social ladder. But I must say that, even as more professionals are screwing up their courage and choosing truth instead of the country club, I am becoming more impatient with those who still hold back from a full commitment to the struggle for the survival of our race and our civilization.

I don't mean to seem condescending or offensive, but I do think that it is time to quit making excuses that claim moral reservations. It is time to face the fact that what is holding you back is not morality but fear: the fear of being labeled a "hater" or a "neo-Nazi" by the media, the fear of being thought uncouth or low class for finally admitting that those low-class Whites who were screaming obscenities at Black demonstrators in the 1960s and who were using the word "nigger" were right. We didn't have to stand on street corners and do things in the low-class way the Klan did, but we were obliged to do something -- we were obliged to do whatever our positions and our abilities enabled us to do most effectively -- and most of us dodged that obligation.

Let's talk about morality and just causes for a moment. I believe that the most common "moral reservation" I hear from the shirkers is that the solutions to our problems that I talk about entail the punishment of the innocent with the guilty. Intelligent people tell me that they agree that we should have a separation of the races. But, they protest, not all Blacks will go voluntarily to some African country, and many of those who won't want to go are hard-working, law-abiding Blacks. And the same is true for the mestizos who won't want to go back to Mexico or El Salvador. And what about the mixed-race children, whose mothers were persuaded by Hollywood or MTV to let Blacks impregnate them? How can we possibly have a White society again without hurting millions of people?

And my answer is that we can't, and you must decide whether it is more moral to stand aside and permit Western civilization and the race that built that civilization over the millennia to become extinct in the very near future, or to hurt many people, White as well as non-White, to ensure that both the race and the civilization survive.

When our ancestors arrived in America from Europe in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, they encountered intense opposition from the Indians, which was natural enough, since the Indians were here first and didn't want us taking their land. But after the first few massacres of White settlers by Indians, our ancestors rolled up their sleeves and virtually exterminated the Indians, and I don't think they had to do a lot of moral agonizing about it first. And it wasn't a gentlemanly war either. We deliberately left smallpox-infected blankets for the Indians to find, knowing that the Indians had no natural resistance to the disease. When we raided Indian villages we killed everybody, young and old, male and female, just like they did when they raided a White settlement. To our ancestors, the choice was: get rid of the Indians, or give up and go back to Europe. I doubt that moral qualms led many to go back to Europe so as not to have to kill Indians. To virtually all of them it was more moral to conquer the land for their descendants and to increase the territory and the power of their race than to let the Indians keep the land. Theirs was the morality of survival, the morality of life.

A couple of things have changed since those days. First, we had a much stronger sense of identity, a much stronger sense of racial community, than now. When it was a matter of Whites versus Indians, everyone knew whose side he was on. Second, we lived much closer to Nature then. We had not been softened by so much security and so many comforts, and reality was something we had to deal with every day in order to survive.

Actually, I've oversimplified this example of Whites versus Indians. By the 19th century some East Coast White liberals had decided they were on the Indian side. They were Whites who had been safely established in the cities for a couple of generations and softened thereby, and they didn't have to face Indians on the frontier. They wrote books, gave lectures to groups of gentlemen, and preached Sunday sermons to the credulous that idealized the Indians as "noble savages," ignored the horrible atrocities committed by the Indians against White settlers, and emphasized White depredations against the Indians. Fortunately, by the time their activities began to have much effect on public opinion or government policy, the Indians were pretty well finished; otherwise the population of the United States today might look much like that of Mexico.

Today the process is somewhat similar, but in reverse. Back in the 1960s nearly all of us already were too soft, too comfortable, too secure, and the propagandists for a new morality, the morality of surrender and death, already had poisoned our souls. We had to treat the Blacks fairly, we believed. We must not accuse the good Jews along with the bad Jews, along with the Zionists. We must not advocate anything that would punish the innocent with the guilty. We had to have a just cause before we could do anything. But now, with the hour of decision at hand, with the grim reality of racial extinction before us, some of us are beginning to understand that the morality of survival is a higher morality than the morality of fairness. I hope that the books I have written, and the lectures and sermons I have been giving, as unpolished and ungentlemanly as they are, have had some small part in bringing this understanding to some of our people.

It is time now for the polite chatter at fashionable dinners and cocktail parties to give way to hardheaded talk and planning aimed at saving our people and saving our civilization, no matter what it takes, no matter how unfair we must be in claiming this planet for our descendants. Perhaps the polite and gentlemanly Americans holding back now may find some much-needed courage in news of developments in polite circles overseas. In Britain, for example, the Jews and their hangers-on in the government and the media have been complaining bitterly for the past month about a remark the French ambassador, Daniel Bernard, made at a very polite dinner party in London. Ambassador Bernard described Israel as "that shitty little country" and asked, "Why should we be in danger of World War Three because of these people?"

The Jews are bemoaning the fact that not only did Bernard have the courage to make that comment, but that others at the dinner party agreed with him. I'll quote from a story in the December 23 issue of the London newspaper, The Independent:

Representatives of Britain's Jews fear that "polite society" is embracing anti-Semitism and making it appear acceptable. It is being nurtured, they say, around the dinner tables of London's "chattering classes" where Jew- and Israel-bashing has, according to some, become de rigueur. Jo Wagerman, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said: "Anti-Semitism is raising its head again. It has become acceptable for the first time in 50 years. People who have a respectable veneer can express these views in public and now get support rather than condemnation. I think much of what is expressed is anti-Zionist in content but within that is a very strong anti-Semitic element."

And it's not just polite society in Britain and in France that is beginning to talk at least a bit more frankly about the world's Jewish problem. Academics, journalists, government officials, and intellectuals throughout the Muslim world, from Iran to Indonesia, are showing increasing willingness to speak out not just about Israel and not just about so-called "Zionists," but about all Jews, about Jews as a race whose monomaniacal scheming poses an enormous danger to the whole world. There always has been an undercurrent of anti-Jewish thought and feeling in most Muslim countries, but in most cases it was only an undercurrent. In official circles it was denounced. The Jews in America would complain to the U.S. government whenever an anti-Israel cartoon appeared in an Egyptian newspaper or the foreign minister of Syria made an anti-Jewish comment in public. The U.S. government would obediently threaten the offending country with unpleasant consequences if the offensive behavior continued, and the appropriate officials in that country would promise to crack down on it.

That situation has been changing during the past couple of years, however, and especially since September 11. Now the governments throughout most of the Muslim world no longer are trying to suppress criticism of the Jews but are participating in the effort to inform their people of the Jewish menace. The influential Saudi Arabian daily newspaper, Al-Watan, published a long, two-part article last month, on December 8 and 9, that I might have written myself. It talked about the Jews' ambition to control the world, from Old Testament times to the present. It went into their scheming before the First World War to use the war to advance their interests, and it went into Jewish media control in depth, pointing out that the Jews everywhere work to undermine the racial and national solidarity of their host countries. Al-Watan, like all of the newspapers in Saudi Arabia, is financed by the government. And at least one major Islamic newspaper in the United States, Muslims, published in New York, has been reprinting the texts of several of these American Dissident Voices broadcasts. The chattering classes in America may be a bit behind those in France and Britain and Saudi Arabia, but I do have hopes that they will begin catching up -- soon.

* * *