Portnoy’s Complaint: A Goyische View

ATTACK! CERTAINLY does not want to establish a reputation as a pander for the skin-flick trade, but we are going out on a limb just once and recommending that all our readers see the movie Portnoy’s Complaint.

Actually there’s very little skin to be seen in this flick, although it is decidedly pornographic. The peg on which the film is hung is a young Jew’s problem with masturbation.

Fixation on Genitalia

If the viewer can stomach the peculiarly Jewish fixation on genitalia and human excretory functions which pervades the film, there is a reward for him: namely, a fleeting glimpse at the traditional Jewish attitude toward Gentiles — or the goyim, as Portnoy and his family would say.

The nationally syndicated film reviewer, Rex Reed, reacted to Portnoy’s Complaint with the indiscreet statement: “This film will make many people think Hitler was right about the Jews.”

Talmudic Prejudice

For example, there are disparaging remarks which Portnoy’s parents repeatedly utter about Gentiles: “goyische crooks” and the like. The viewer, of course, is supposed to believe that is only because they are old-fashioned, religious Jews, who have been brought up on the Talmud and can’t help themselves. Young Portnoy, in contrast, is a “liberated” Jew, who has no truck with the anti-Gentilism of his parents — almost.

The careful observer will see the true attitude of the “liberated” Jew more subtly — and, presumably, unconsciously — expressed by the Jews who created this sickening film and the book on which it is based, in their diverse portrayals of two of its characters: the empty-headed, degraded Gentile girl, or “shiksa,” Mary Jane, and the upright, self-confident Jewish girl, Naomi.

Joys of Yiddish

This word “shiksa,” used several times during the film, tells a story of its own. It is one of those Yiddish words, like “schlemiel” or “schmuck,” formerly used only by Jews out of earshot of the nearest Gentile, which today are openly flaunted in mixed company — and have even become part of the vocabulary of “avant-garde” Gentiles.

Some Yiddish words stem from Hebrew; most, like “schmuck,” have German roots. A particularly interesting feature of Yiddish words is that a great many of them have double meanings. “Schmuck,” for example, means “ornament” or “decoration” to a German; to a Jew it means “penis.”

A Piece of Meat

“Shiksa” has a Hebrew root which means “abomination,” “something unclean” — specifically, a piece of “unclean” (non-kosher) meat, like a pork chop or a slice of ham.

The use of the same word to designate a Gentile girl and a piece of “unclean” meat may seem to many only a harmless, private Jewish joke. It’s no joke, though.

Consider the more commonly used Yiddish word, goy (plural: goyim), meaning “Gentile.” It comes directly from the Hebrew, where it has two meanings: (non-Jewish) “people” or (non-Jewish) “nation” — and “cattle.”

It is interesting to browse through the Old Testament, substituting “goyim” for “nation” wherever that word appears. For instance, “The goyim who refuse to serve you (Israel) shall perish; yea, those goyim shall be utterly wasted” (Isaiah 60:12). It brings home a little more clearly the burning hatred, the bottomless contempt of Jew for Gentile — a hatred and contempt which stretch from the time of Isaiah to the present.

Not for Goyische Eyes

Usually Jews have kept these feelings carefully concealed, although one would think the Old Testament sufficiently explicit to give the game away. The Talmud is much more explicit — so much so that it is scrupulously guarded from prying Gentile eyes. Thick-witted, good-natured brutes though they be, even Gentiles might take offense at the blatant expression of hatred in the Talmud.

It is all the more curious, then, that in the past few years the Jewish Establishment has so recklessly let its guard down. Why a picture like Portnoy’s Complaint when there are so many other sick (and safe) topics they could have used for a porno-film?

Ritual Murder*

And why have they let the book Gehlen: Germany’s Master Spy go on sale as a paperback at newsstands all over America, when that book reveals (on page 133) that the Jewess, Hilde Benjamin, chief justice of the postwar Soviet regime in East Germany, delivered all her thousands of death sentences according to the Jewish tradition for ritual murder of a Gentile, with Talmud, candle, and all?

We Don’t Count

Why the increasing tendency in the mass media to rub our noses in the private little world of Jewish humor, Jewish perversion, and Jewish folkways — almost as if the media existed for their benefit alone, and we just didn’t count?

Has their contempt made them careless?

Not really. During the next few months a million or so goyische “cattle” will pay their $3 apiece to see Portnoy’s Complaint, and 99 percent of them will laugh at all the places they’re supposed to laugh, think only what they’re supposed to think, and walk out when it’s all over no more aware of what’s going on in the world — and no more caring — than when they walked in.

But Portnoy and his tribe had better watch out for that last one percent.

* * *

* A documentary paperback reveals Jewish hatred and vengefulness against Germans expressed through Talmudic ritual murder. None of the hundreds of American GIs who witnessed the scene in May 1945 will ever forget the little park in the Berlin suburb of Lichterfelde where the corpses of 30 German children between the ages of three and nine were found hanging upside down from trees by cords strung through their heel tendons. Their throats had been slashed and Hebrew letters daubed on their naked bodies with blood. News of the horrible atrocity, which had been committed by Soviet Jewish troops, was suppressed and Army news photographers’ film confiscated, on orders from Eisenhower’s HQ.

Dr. William L. Pierce

From Attack! No. 14, 1972 transcribed by Anthony Collins and edited by Vanessa Neubauer, from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard,

Sexuality in a Sick Society

The changing relationship between men and women is leading to ominous racial consequences for the West.

by Dr. William L. Pierce (1983)

EVERYONE IS AWARE that a sexual revolution has taken place in the West since the Second World War. Most people think of this revolution primarily in terms of the “liberation” of women, as seen in their increased role in economic life outside the home and a few traditional occupations; and of freer — or more promiscuous, depending on one’s viewpoint — sexual relations between men and women, attributed to the breakdown of traditional morality under the impact of the mass media and facilitated by “the pill” and legalized abortion. The sexual revolution also has other facets, however, which, although not as widely recognized or publicized as those mentioned above, are of a more fundamental nature. One of these, the demasculinization of the Western male, together with the reaction of the Western female to this, is a cause for grave concern among thoughtful persons, even those who generally approve of the wider economic role women have today and do not regret the disappearance of the fear of pregnancy as a check on premarital sex.

Really, “demasculinization” is an inadequate word for describing what has happened to the Western male. Certainly, the number of effeminate males has increased greatly — not just the sexual inverts, who actually have taken pseudo-female sexual roles, but even more the legions of sissies and weaklings, of flabby, limp-wristed, non-aggressive, non-physical, indecisive, slack-jawed, fearful males who, while still heterosexual in theory and practice, have not even a vestige of the old macho spirit, so deprecated today, left in them.

Beyond these pitiful casualties of the modern era, however, are the much larger numbers of White males who still think like men — more or less — but are constrained from expressing their maleness in many of the ways which were natural in the past. One of the most important of those ways was supporting and protecting a mate. To be sure, many men are still able to fill this traditional role of provider and protector, but a rapidly growing number of others are not, and the psychological consequences for the latter are profound.

We are all familiar with the extreme caricature of the castrating female: the militant feminist who wants every male within shrieking distance to know that she is quite capable of taking care of herself and neither needs nor wants any man’s support or protection. Such women, fortunately, are still relatively rare, although their ranks are increasing. There are a great many more “liberated” women, who, while not shrill man-haters by any means, through their aggressive assertiveness and their manifest independence tend nevertheless to have a castrating effect on the men in their lives.

The effect exists even when there is no trace of feminine intent. The husband whose wife has a career outside the home, even if only because two incomes are needed to make ends meet, feels less a man because of it, whether he will admit that or not. All the brave, new talk about marriage today being a partnership of equals does not change the basic, biological natures of men and women. Those natures have fitted them for complementary roles, not for the same role. The man who merely puts his paycheck into the family kitty, along with his wife’s, may find some satisfaction in being a member of an economic partnership, but it is not the same as being the master in his house.

Just as support is not what it used to be, neither is protection. When a father had some authority over his daughter, and a husband over his wife, another male approached either at his peril. Not only did female dependence carry with it the need for protection, but it also stimulated in the male the desire to provide that protection. The entire community was behind the man who drew his sword or his gun in defense of his womenfolk.

Today, when a wife may be more of a roommate than a mate and it is a rare father who has any authority at all over his teen-aged daughter, both the compelling urge and the legal right of a man to protect his women seem much less clear-cut. In response to an interloper he is more likely to telephone his lawyer than reach for his shotgun. Again, because of that he is less a man, and he knows it. So do his women.

And the women of the West have reacted to what their men have become, fully as much as Western men have reacted to the “liberation” of their women. The female reaction, like that of the male, has been complex and subtle, but it is no less real and no less deep-seated, for it springs from the same biological roots.

One way in which Western women have responded to the perceived demasculinization of their men has been to turn toward non-White males, who are perceived as more masculine. This has its counterpart in the growing number of Western men — exasperated and intimidated by the assertiveness of the present generation of young, White women — who are seeking Asian mates, because of the reputed docility and submissiveness of the latter. The demand in America, Europe, and Australia for Asian women has become so great, in fact, that a number of marriage-by-mail entrepreneurs have been making handsome profits by importing brides from the Philippines and elsewhere for White bachelors.

Kurt Kirstein of Blanca, Colorado, is typical. He has set up a company named “Philippine American Life Partners,” and for $80 he will provide up to 1,000 photographs of available Philippine women. Last year more than 7,000 mail-order brides left the Philippines to marry lonely White men who, despite the surplus of unmarried White women in their countries, preferred unliberated Brown women.

By far the larger trend, however, has involved White women and non-White — especially Black — males. A decade or two ago the cases were legion in which women from the upper social strata — educated, sophisticated, sheltered by wealthy families — deliberately sought out and formed liaisons with laborers. These women, who had despaired of finding a man who could satisfy them among the weak, soft, over-civilized males of their own social class, often were willing to endure beatings and infidelity at the hands of their blue-collar lovers in order to fill their need for a primal relationship. But their rough-and-ready lovers were, at least, generally White. Nowadays they generally are not.

A just-published book from Dial Press (Privilege: The Enigma of Sasha Bruce, by Joan Mellen) is the biography of a blue-blooded heiress, the beautiful and intelligent daughter of multimillionaire diplomat David K.E. Bruce, one-time US ambassador to France, West Germany, and Britain. Conceived, appropriately, in 1945, Alexandra (Sasha) Bruce was educated in the most expensive and exclusive girls’ boarding schools and then at Radcliffe. At the age of 29 she was murdered by a Greek whom she had married a few weeks earlier. Before that, however, she had run through a long succession of Black lovers in her fruitless, instinctual search for a man who would not only love her but also master her. Along with the Blacks had come just about every imaginable form of degradation, humiliation, and self-abasement.

Sasha Bruce was exceptional and notable because of the prominence of her family and the violence of her end, but there are tens of thousands of other White women following her footsteps unnoted today.

In Europe those footsteps usually lead south, into the arms of Mediterranean men instead of Blacks. Swedish, Danish, German, Dutch, and English women head south in droves every year for vacations in Rome, Naples, Athens, and a hundred beach resorts along the Mediterranean shore, hungry for the masculinity they imagine they will find in the uninhibited, macho males there. Sometimes these tall, fair daughters of the North remain with their dark, southern lovers for years, supporting them on checks mailed from indulgent parents back home.

As northern males have continued to become more wimpish,[1] the result of their efforts to conform to the media-created image of the “new male” — more pacifist, less authoritarian, more “sensitive,” less competitive, more androgynous, less possessive — the controlled media, the homosexual lobby, and the feminist movement have cheered, but something deep in the soul of White womanhood has groaned. The hurt felt by the woman who needs a strong man and cannot find one surpasses all the other hurts to which the flesh is heir, and it often drives her to extremes of action destructive to both self and race.

One of the more bizarre forms taken by such action recently has been the growing migration of White women to the jungles and shantytowns of Jamaica, where they are bedding down with Rastafarians, members of a White-hating, drug-using, messianic Black sect who plait their woolly hair into snake-like “dreadlocks,” abjure all the creations of the White man’s science and the norms of his culture, and await the coming of their Black messiah in a haze of marijuana and reggae.

So many German women have disappeared into Jamaica in the past few years, in fact, that a recent issue of the leading West German news magazine carried a lengthy article on the phenomenon:

When one travels along Jamaica’s north coast, which attracts some 600,000 tourists each year, one is struck by the fascination of the daughters of White civilization by the Black sons of the wilderness,” the magazine notes. “One sees rows of female eyes turn from the Jamaican sunset toward the locks of an approaching ‘dread.’ One experiences the sight of a dozen blooming maidens following the lips of some talking Rasta … One feels the irritation of the hotel guests… [when a White girl with a Rasta shows up, she bright and combed, he dark and ragged…[2]

Not only German women, but also Canadian and American women have been drawn to Jamaica and the Rastas. Some have been murdered, many have been raped and robbed, but still they come. One woman interviewed by Der Spiegel was 26-year-old Maggi. She had been a German university student — and a feminist. After seven semesters of sociology, she left school and headed west, looking for something.

She found it in a Rastafarian commune. The Rastas fought violently over her, and she enjoyed immensely the experience of her “incredible attractiveness as a White woman.”

The Rasta Maggi presently is sleeping with is “full of rage against White oppressors throughout history,” and he berates her with tirades of anti-White hatred. Interestingly, she feels this has given her a better feeling for her own race: “I understand that, although our race is totally deformed [now], it could be just as wonderful [as the Black race] if it would only return to its own original ways.” For the present, however, Black men, with their strong consciousness of their “roots,” are “simply more attractive [to me] than White men.”

What are these “roots” Maggi finds attractive? As a religion, Rastafarianism is an absurd hodge-podge which can hardly be taken seriously by any White person bright enough to graduate from a German kindergarten, much less by a university senior. It grew out of the 1920’s “back to Africa” movement of the American Negro leader Marcus Garvey.[3]

Rastafarians believe that the late Ethiopian emperor, Haile Selassie (who was called Ras — or Prince — Tafari before his accession, hence the name Rastafarian) is the Black messiah who will one day unite them and lead them to victory over the hated Whites. They conveniently overlook the fact that Ethiopians, with their narrow noses and racially mixed background, not only do not consider themselves Black but have traditionally looked upon their Black neighbors in Africa as fit only to be killed or enslaved. The Rastafarians also refuse to accept the fact that Haile Selassie died in 1975 at the age of 83. They believe that the reports of his death are White trickery.

They advocate an African life-style, but they have very confused notions as to the way in which Blacks lived in Africa before the arrival of the White man. In practice it means living in a state of primitive squalor and indolence, keeping themselves perpetually high on ganja (as they call Jamaica’s native variety of marijuana) while their women support them. They express contempt for all White technology, but they make exceptions in the case of White products which suit them, such as canned food or the transistor radios which blare out the mind-numbing rhythms of reggae music day and night.

Clearly it is none of this which has such a fatal fascination for Maggi and thousands of other White women. Rather it is the raw, uncivilized, animal masculinity which the Rastas consciously cultivate. They are proud of the suppleness and muscularity of their Black bodies; proud of the bold, challenging stare with which they greet any stranger, especially a White one; proud of the fear which their dreadlocks and their provocative behavior evoke in male tourists.

It is their unabashed sensuality, their wildness, their readiness to fight over any affront to what they think of as their manly dignity, their arrogant flaunting of their maleness which lure the civilized but male-hungry women of the decadent, effeminate West to them.

Another woman interviewed in Jamaica by Der Spiegel is Billi, 25. She is a product of the West German feminist movement, which she says is still “very important to me.” But, she also says, the “unisex” civilization of the West had come to bore her. She has found her own sexual identity through the strong contrast of her sexuality against that of her Rasta lover, whom she supports with the $500 per month she earns as a secretary in Kingston. (Rastas, unlike Whites, do not seem to feel at all demasculinized by having their women support them.)

The flocking of White women to Jamaica is an exceptional rather than a typical symptom of the sexual malaise of the West, and it is fully as much a symptom of the decay of the West’s sense of racial pride.[4] But it is a grim reminder to us of the inextricable interdependence of the sexual and racial issues: Unless a healthy relationship between the sexes is reestablished in the West, the White race certainly will not survive.

This, is not the first time in the history of the race that a sexual crisis has been tied to a racial crisis. The Bhagavad-Gita warned some 2,000 years ago: “Out of the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of races; out of the confusion of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding; and out of this, all evil.”[5]

The same connection can be recognized in Roman history. The contemporary Swiss writer Amaury de Riencourt has noted:[6]

Roman women unwittingly wrecked with their own hands their feminine strongholds within a patriarchal society; from the proud, dignified and influential mothers they had been in early republican times, they became despisers of their prime biological function in imperial times and began competing with men on men’s terms. In this, they were unsuccessful. They made no significant contribution to whatever Roman culture there was; and by failing to reestablish respect for specifically female values, they made their contribution to the corruption of Roman life under the imperial sway of the Caesars — without ever achieving any direct share in political power.

The problem confronting Western men and women today is an extraordinarily difficult one. The recent ruckus in the United States over the attempt to ratify the so-called “equal rights amendment” has focused attention on the organized feminist movement as a factor in the breakdown of the relationship between the sexes, and it has tended to increase the polarization into two camps: Those in the movement or in sympathy with it who, in the name of eliminating all “discrimination,” want to produce a totally “unisex” society, in which there no longer will be men and women, but only “persons”; and those outside it who believe that the feminists themselves are solely responsible for bringing women out of the bedroom, the nursery, and the kitchen and either converting them into lesbians or planting the notion in their heads that they cannot find fulfillment except as the chairman of General Motors or the commanding officer of an aircraft carrier.

Certainly there are pernicious elements in the feminist movement: Not only the lesbians and the psychopathic man-haters, but also the Jews, who are never less than a third of the leadership of feminist organizations or of the editorial staff of feminist publications.[7] And there can be no doubt that the Jews fully understand the destructive effect on Gentile society that their wielding of the feminist movement is having. To them it is yet another weapon in their arsenal.

There can be equally little doubt, however, that the feminist movement today is as much an effect of the West’s sexual confusion as it is a cause: Thus, the high proportion of feminists among the women who seek in Jamaica the sexuality they no longer can find in Europe or America. The sexual crisis, like many of our other social problems, has its roots in the transformation of White society which came with the Industrial Revolution and the transition to an urban society; urbanization radically changed the traditional roles of both men and women.

One can easily find even deeper roots, in the distortion of the pagan Germanic sexual ethos through the imposition of Christianity, with its Asiatic sexual notions, on northern Europe.[8]

We cannot return to the past, however, even though it is essential that we understand it and that we have the fullest possible knowledge of our roots there. We must find new solutions to fit new conditions.

But we must find them very soon, for the corruption of our women is proceeding more rapidly with each passing day, and at the same time more of our young males are growing into something less than men, while a blind rage is building in others.

* * *

Notes:

1] The American poet Robert Bly, who travels the country lecturing at colleges, observed in a recent interview (New Age, May 1982): “When I look out at my audiences, perhaps half the young males are what I’d call ‘soft.’ They’re lovely, valuable people — I like them — and they’re not interested in harming the earth, or starting wars, or working for corporations. There’s something favorable toward life in their general mood and style of living.

“But something’s wrong. Many of these men are unhappy. There’s not much energy in them. They are life-preserving, but not exactly life-giving …

“The kind of energy I’m talking about is not the same as macho, brute strength, which men already know enough about: it’s forceful action undertaken, not without compassion, but with resolve.”

[2] Der Spiegel, May 31, 1982, pp.138-160.

[3] Marcus Garvey (1887-1940) was probably the most charismatic leader the Black race has yet produced in the New World. He founded his movement in Jamaica and then brought it to Harlem, New York, where it flourished. He collected some 7,000,000 Black signatures on a petition asking the US government to finance the repatriation of American Blacks to Africa.

Garvey advocated Black pride, Black separateness, and a return to ancestral Black ways — as well as a physical return to the Black homeland in Africa. He was not, however, hostile to Whites. In fact, he was bitterly attacked by assimilationist Blacks because of his friendly attitude toward the Ku Klux Klan and other White separatist groups.

Garvey in turn attacked assimilationist organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People because of their “White” (actually, Jewish) leadership and their caste system, in which light-skinned Mulattos looked down on darker Blacks.

The assimilationists eventually prevailed, and Garvey, with the help of the liberal White establishment, was railroaded into prison on a trumped-up mail fraud charge in 1925. That killed his movement in America, but its embers continued to smolder in Jamaica, the land of his birth, where between 10 and 25 per cent. of the population is now Rastafarian. Whether he would recognize what his movement has become today is questionable, however.

[4] The racial factor is especially relevant for the large number of German women attracted to Jamaica. Germany’s World War 2 conquerors, in order to make that country safe for Jews and democracy, imposed a vicious program of brainwashing on the German people, in the name of “denazification.” The natural, healthy racial values promoted by the National Socialists were inverted by Germany’s postwar re-educators, so that German women today are the most shameless race-mixers in the West.

The postwar reeducation of Germany will be treated in depth in a future issue of National Vanguard. For now let it suffice to contrast the destructive feminism rampant in Germany today with the ideal expressed in a speech Adolf Hitler gave to a convention of the National Women’s Organization in Nuremberg in 1937, four years after the National Socialists had come to power and begun implementing their programs. The closing words of Hitler’s speech were:

And so in the new Germany we are no longer turning out limp-wristed academicians who whimper at the slightest twinge of pain. …Our men must be even stronger than our women, who, God knows, bravely endure plenty themselves just in childbirth. I give you back, the National Socialist movement gives you back, the man — the man!

The audience of 20,000 women erupted into a thunderous roar of applause.

[5] Bhagavad-Gita, I, verse 41 et seq. This great Sanskrit epic, whose title means “The Lord’s Song,” expresses much of the traditional moral wisdom of the Aryan conquerors of ancient India.

[6] Sex and Power in History (New York, 1974)

[7] It is a notable fact that the best-known feminist politician is the Jewess Bella Abzug; that the author of the most influential feminist book (The Feminine Mystique) is the Jewess Betty Friedan; and that the founder of the largest-circulation feminist periodical (Ms.) is the Jewess Gloria Steinem.

[8] See the commentary on the Pauline sexual doctrine in “A Search for Values: Toward a White Ethic,” National Vanguard No. 89.

* * *
by Dr. William L. Pierce (1983)
Source: National Vanguard magazine No. 92, January 1983

Pierce on schooling

 

 Pierce was on a university faculty for three years and still cares a great deal about education. His critique of American schooling reveals much about the way he sees American society in general. In a recent article in Free Speech entitled "The School Problem," he argues that schools have three fundamental missions in a society of the sort he envisions. I believe he primarily has elementary and secondary education in mind in the following quoted material.

 First, schools pass on a people's cultural, intellectual, and spiritual heritage from one generation to the next. By teaching to children the language, literature, history, and traditions of a people--by teaching children about their people's heroes and legends and achievements and mores--the schools help to assure cultural continuity, among other things. And they provide a sense of racial and cultural identity. They enable a child to define himself relative to his people and to the rest of the world.

 Second, schools teach technique; they help children acquire the knowledge and skills needed for them to become productive and self-supporting members of their society, whether those skills are welding, computer programming, accounting, or household management. They teach the child or the young adult techniques which will be useful to him or to society: how to play a musical instrument, how to type, how to repair a motor vehicle, how to fight with and without weapons, how to draw, how to swim, how to raise children, how to grow food, how to build a house.

 And third, schools train and develop character in children, so that they will grow up to be the strongest and most valuable citizens that their genetic inheritance allows. The schools challenge, test, and condition children; they force the child to exercise his will, to discipline himself, to endure discomfort, to make plans and carry them out, to overcome fears, to accept responsibility, to learn the consequences of failure, to be truthful, to act honorably, and generally to

 develop and strengthen those traits of character valued by his society. 1

 Using the achievement of these three missions with white children as the standard of assessment, America's schools just aren't measuring up, Pierce asserts. And why aren't they? Pierce argues that three "isms" are getting in the way: namely, multiculturalism, egalitarianism, and feminism. He says these three ideologies are solidly entrenched in the minds of the powerful "progressive" faction within the education establishment and serve its overall agenda.

 For a long time, of course, the more "progressive" elements--that is, the nuttier elements--in America's educational establishment have been fretting about exposing young people to all of the racist, sexist, homophobic, and elitist influences inherent in the writings of White authors from generations less Politically Correct than our own. These include all the writers whose works American schoolchildren traditionally have read: Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Dickens, Tennyson, and Kipling. They are hateful people when viewed from a Politically Correct perspective. I mean, Homer and Chaucer completely ignored Blacks, as if they didn't exist! And Shakespeare made a number of very insensitive references to Jews. Kipling was an unabashed White supremacist. And they were all elitists: not an egalitarian among them. "Progressive" educators have skirted this problem by censoring the works of White writers before presenting them to students, keeping the more objectionable works out of sight.'

 According to Pierce, multiculturalism, egalitarianism, and feminism operate under a division-of-labor arrangement in our schools, each specializing, as it were, in obstructing the attainment of one of the three fundamental missions of schooling: multiculturalism impedes the transmission of white children's Western, European heritage; egalitarianism undercuts the attainment of the acquisition of knowledge and skills; and feminism undermines the development of character. In "The School Problem," Pierce outlines in turn how the fulfillment of each mission is subverted.

 Pierce says that schools are not even trying to pass on a European, or even American, identity and sense of connectedness to the next generation of white people. The reigning ideology of multiculturalism, says Pierce, pushes for a multi-racial, "diverse" society, in which all cultures are

 equally valuable. Multiculturalists are not about to single out Western traditions for special attention or praise. The result is that no culture is taught in depth, and students come away with a few superficial facts and generalizations about a number of cultures. What white youngsters do manage to learn about their own heritage isn't likely to make them feel very good about it, because despite their rhetoric, multiculturalists have a negative view of the West generally and Euro-American traditions and history in particular. Multiculturalists don't want to encourage the development of racial consciousness and loyalty among white youngsters--among minority youngsters, yes, but among white youngsters most certainly not. In today's schools, white students are deluged by tales of their oppressive and exploitative ancestors—especially the men among them. After year upon year of exposure to this kind of schooling, white children become instilled with a negative and very distorted view of their own people and feelings of guilt.

 Pierce says that some of the charter schools set up for black children do a better job of providing for racial and cultural continuity than the schools white children attend. (Charter schools are public schools which are allowed to operate independently of most outside bureaucratic control.) He tells of a newspaper article which describes black children in such a school dressed in traditional African garb and, with clenched fists, pledging allegiance to their fellow Africans. "If a White school tried with equal fervor to instill a sense of European racial consciousness in its students," Pierce asserts, "the government would be all over the school with subpoenas in a minute." 3

 And then there is egalitarianism--the belief in the essential equality of all individuals and groups--and its impact on the schools. Pierce says that imparting knowledge and technique is what schools do best. But they don't do it nearly as well as they could because their egalitarian "articles of faith" lead them to refuse to recognize distinctions among people and consequently attempt to fit everyone into the same mold. "It used to b e that we weren't afraid to recognize the differences in people," Pierce points out. "We understood that some people would grow up to be welders, construction workers, or farmers; and some would be mathematicians, poets, or rocket scientists. We also understood that shop courses made more sense for boys than girls, and that girls needed home economics courses more than boys did." 4

 In prior times, Pierce points out, we acknowledged the obvious reality that some students were academically more capable than others. He contends that this fact of human existence has been a source of great anguish to the egalitarians, and that they have come up with ways to get around it. What do they do? They water down the curriculum. They

 disparage and downplay the importance of intellectual pursuits. They lower academic standards. They do away with rigorous, objective tests of achievement. Then, with all that in place, every student can succeed--at least as the egalitarians have defined success--and the myth of human equality can be maintained. The egalitarians have been able to perpetuate the comforting but false notion of human equality in their own minds--they desperately want it to be true—as well as in the minds of others. The big problem, however, is that, whether they realize it or not, they have done it at the cost of academic excellence.

 Pierce says that it is a fact that, on average, black students are significantly less capable than whites of handling a traditional curriculum. But no one dares say it--or, for that matter, even speculate about the possibility that there might be racial differences in intellectual functioning—for fear of being called a racist. No matter how much research evidence is marshaled to support the conclusion that blacks as a group have lower intelligence, no matter how much evidence we take in with our own senses, the egalitarians hang onto their belief that the races are exactly the same in this regard and insist that everyone else does too. Pierce says that egalitarians can be counted on to manipulate reality to make it appear that their beliefs are valid. If white children are in a school with large numbers of black children it is safe to bet that the curriculum, academic standards, and assessment mechanisms will have been adjusted to ensure that white performance will be brought back to the level of the black students.

 Pierce argues that along with our refusal to recognize intellectual differences among the races, we also refuse to recognize attitudinal and behavioral differences among them. Blacks on the whole, claims Pierce, have lower self-control and a greater propensity to be disorderly and violent. As the schools have been integrated, Pierce asserts, they have brought these problems with them to the classrooms white students attend. Pierce says it is true blacks change their values and behavior in the direction of white patterns to some extent when they are mixed with whites. But it works the other way too, contends Pierce: whites begin moving toward black norms. White youth educated with blacks can be predicted to be less academically oriented, more disruptive, and more violent than their forebears who did not have the "benefits" of diversity--so Pierce argues.

 Pierce claims that most whites have been so "sensitized" and brainwashed that they have a very hard time dealing with racial realities. They see the problems in urban schools with drugs and gangs and poor attitudes toward schoolwork and yet refuse to acknowledge the racial dimension of the problems. They have bought into the false egalitarian myth of the absence of racial differences in anything other than skin color.

 Although then again, Pierce notes, when white people are looking for safer and better schools for their children, they seek out whiter schools for their children, even if they can't fully admit to themselves that that is what they are doing. So maybe they haven't been totally brainwashed after all.

 And then there is feminism and its impact on educational practice. Pierce informs us that over the past few decades, feminists have gained great influence within the education establishment. "And let me tell you," he proclaims, "if there is any bunch of people in this country with wackier and more destructive ideas than the racial egalitarians, it is the feminists." 5 Pierce says the feminists see traditional educational practice as a male-oriented way of operating, and they are bent on changing things over to bring them in line with a female way of looking at the world and dealing with it.

 Feminists, for example, always have been against competition. They regard competitiveness as a masculine trait, and they try to discourage it in every way they can. They are in league with the racial egalitarians in pushing for an end to the grading of students. Setting precise standards and then grading students numerically according to their performance relative to those standards is anathema to them. They see it as psychologically damaging to the students—especially to those who make low scores. They much prefer a warm and fuzzy approach to evaluating students. Their goal for the classroom is cooperation, as opposed to what they like to refer as "cutthroat" competition. They love committees and work groups and consensus. They want to see the students deal with learning as a group, with the brighter students helping the duller students. They like to see problems talked to death in a group. It's not really stretching their ideas very far to say that whenever the members of a student group disagree about a problem, the feminists would like to see the students vote on the correct answer. They really do have a different view of the nature of reality.

 The feminists also don't like to see a strong emphasis on rules. It destroys creativity, they believe. Rules and details should be relegated to a secondary position, and students should be given the "big picture" instead. They should be able to talk about a subject in broad terms without worrying too much about the details. And the feminists don't much care for an analytical approach to any subject. Analysis is too masculine. 6

 Pierce contends that the effectiveness of feminism's efforts to de-emphasize competition in our schools can be seen in our diminished competitive spirit in this country compared to prior times and in the growing softness and wimpishness of so many young white men. Pierce says it is important to see how everything ties together; since the media are enamored of anything that weakens white people, and feminism does that, it explains why the media have, in Pierce's words, "tried to ram feminist propaganda down our throats." 7

 So there it is: Pierce thinks that multiculturalism prevents the passing on of European culture and identity to the next generation; egalitarianism has wrecked our standards, undermined discipline, and corrupted our curriculum; and feminism has nullified the character-building task of the schools. Pierce acknowledges that this analysis is an oversimplification, but still, he contends, it gets at the heart of the matter if one shares his concern for the fate of European-American children.

 It must be said that Pierce is far from alone in his basic assessment of the ills of American education. A number of outspoken critics on the right share Pierces concerns about the impact of multiculturalism, egalitarianism, and feminism on America's schooling specifically, and about progressive education generally. However, I know of no other analyst who explicitly brings the racial angle to his arguments as Pierce does. And Pierce is the only one I know about who openly expresses his belief that the education that promotes the level of cultural identity and continuity among white people he wants to see can only occur in racially homogeneous schools. Ironically, Pierce puts forth the same arguments in making this case as do a number of African American educators who have long advocated separate schools for black children geared to helping them develop a sense of African and black racial consciousness and pride and commitment. Pierce says that it is indicative of what is going on in America that there are such schools for black children supported with public dollars, but that any attempt to create these very same kind of schools, private or public, for white children is immediately and vigorously condemned as "racist" and "white supremacist" and shut down.

 A North Carolina television news reporter came to West Virginia to interview Pierce. While he was at the property, the reporter asked Pierce to show him an example of the children's books Pierce distributes through his National Vanguard Books catalog. Pierce responded by showing him a copy of an illustrated edition of Aesop's Fables. The reporter flipped through the pages and asked Pierce, "What is this all about?" It turned out that this young reporter had never heard of Aesop or his fables.

 Pierce told the reporter that it was a collection of stories, each with a moral, attributed to the Greek writer Aesop, who lived around 600 B.C.. Recalling that exchange, Pierce says that at first he was surprised at the reporter's unfamiliarity with the Aesop material but now realizes that he shouldn't have been. In recent times neither schools nor parents see any need to introduce white children to the stories of Aesop, or to the Brothers Grimm and the others of that sort, that earlier generations of white children read or had read to them.

 When I was a kid one of the special charms that Aesop's Fables held for me was the knowledge that Alexander the Great had read exactly these same stories when he was a child, more than 2,300 years ago. When I read the fable about the dog in the manger or the one about the shepherd boy who cried "wolf and thought about the lessons these fables taught, it thrilled me to think that every great man in our history, for thousands of years, had read these same stories when he was a child and learned the same lessons.

 But not any longer. These fables are...Eurocentric...and so today they are all "no-nos" for White children--which is why we have a White population in America which is increasingly rootless, cosmopolitan, alienated, and atomized--a White population which is unable to defend its heritage or to oppose those whose aim is to destroy that heritage, because they have no knowledge of their heritage, and who believe that anyone who values that heritage must be a "hater" or a "racist." 8

 When I was in West Virginia, I saw one of the children's books that Pierce distributes on Bob DeMarais' desk and borrowed it to see what kind of books Pierce thought appropriate for young children. It was called Annie and the Wild Animals, and it was written and illustrated by Jan Brett. 9 It was published in 1985 by Houghton Mifflin, a major American publishing house. The book looked to me to be something that could b e used in the early grades in schools or that parents could read to their three-to-six-year-old children in twenty minutes or so--it was mostly pictures. Annie is a little blond girl of four or five who lives in the country and whose cat disappears one winter. With her cat gone, Annie makes a connection with a variety of woodland animals. When spring comes, Annie finds her cat along with a litter of newborn kittens in the woods as all the other animals she has met look on.

 I could see why Pierce would favor Annie and the Wild Animals. A little white girl, embedded in a natural world, not a concrete-and-steel

 world. Annie's was a calm world, not a jangly world. Annie directly encounters life; she wasn't living a media-infused, Sesame Street/video game/Disney film existence. And there was a timelessness to the story: it could have taken place yesterday or twenty years ago or a hundred years ago. It wasn't about the hip-hop, bang-bang-bang, go-go-go world of today. It is how Pierce--unrealistically, some would say--thinks white children ought to live.

 In a radio broadcast back called "Brainwashing in America," Pierce spoke to the issue of university education. 10 He told his audience that he had been a university professor during the turbulent 1960s. This was a time marked by the powerful emergence of the so-called counterculture, with its hostility to authority, friendliness to drugs and recreational sex, and encouragement to people to do whatever felt good to them at the moment These were also the years of the civil rights revolution--Pierce says blacks were "demonstrating and generally raising hell"--and the anti-Vietnam war movement.

 Pierce told his listeners that he divided his colleagues on the faculty into four categories on the basis of how they related to all that was happening on campus in those years.

 First, Pierce said, there were the "Trendies." These were the unthinking liberals--in contrast to the second group, the more reflective, doctrinaire liberals and radical leftists (I'll call them "Lefties"). The Trendies were disposed to believe whatever was fashionable, said Pierce. They were the ones who held a moistened forefinger up to the breeze of propaganda coming from their television screens and orating colleagues, and adjusted their views accordingly.

 Then, the third of Pierce's categories, there were the Jews, who, noted Pierce, are more numerous on college campuses than in the general population. The Jews were "up to their necks in civil rights activities," Pierce pointed out—organizing committees to hire more non-white faculty members and recruit non-white students, demanding that the university trustees get rid of their investments in South Africa, and marching and demonstrating and writing letters to the editor and opinion pieces. Jews were also very active in the anti-war movement because, claimed Pierce, unlike World War II, they didn't see their interests being served in Vietnam. And Jews were very prominent among those pushing

 countercultural values—personal license, disrespect for social convention, and the rest. These values subverted morality and order in white society, and the prospect of that turn of events has great appeal to Jews, said Pierce.

 As a result of the activities of the Lefties, the Trendies, and the Jews, Pierce alleged, there was a lowering of hiring and student recruitment

 standards, a lowering of academic standards, and the subordination of the educational mission of the university to a leftist political agenda. Later on, Pierce said, the feminists and gay rights activists got on board and the university became the bastion of Political Correctness (he always capitalizes that term) that it is today.

 Pierce doesn't have a name for the fourth category of faculty with whom he worked at the university, but based on how he describes them, I'll give them a label--"Timids." The Timids were the faculty members who weren't taken in by what was going on—they knew what was up--but they were not willing to express their views openly or to oppose the confirmed Lefties, the trendy liberals, and the vocal Jews (with the first and third categories often being the same people). Pierce said the Timids would say one thing privately and another thing publicly. Pierce said he thinks that these faculty were unduly afraid of the consequences to themselves of taking on the Lefties, Trendies, and Jews and ended up acting in dishonest--and to Pierce's way of thinking, dishonorable--ways.

 Pierce acknowledges that the Timids did have some reason to be concerned about their welfare if they spoke up. Their careers could have been affected if they went up against certain people—tenure and promotions decisions could go against them, salary increases could b e denied, and prime teaching assignments could be given to someone else. And too, Pierce reported, there was some physical intimidation--tire-slashing, disruptions of classes, threats of violence, those kinds of things. And then of course there was the disdain and ridicule that would have been directed at the Timids if they had spoken up or failed to go along with what the Lefties, Trendies, and Jews wanted done.

 As I was listening to the tape of Pierce's broadcast, I thought of one other possible reason for the silence of the Timids. To the degree that Pierce is right, that many people on the right stayed silent and inactive during the 1960s, it could have been that they simply didn't want to live with not being liked and approved and accepted by those on the left. I have observed an interesting difference between those on the political right and political left. Characteristically, those on the right, for whatever reason, want to be liked and approved by those on the left. In contrast, those on the left could not care less whether those on the right like them or approve of what they say or do. They don't give two seconds to worrying about what somebody on the right is going to think of them before saying or doing something. If that is true, the prospect of being confronted by the disapproval, disagreement, or cold shoulder from their liberal and leftist colleagues may well be enough to keep conservative and rightist faculty members silent, inactive, and acquiescent, or even lead them actively to support goings-on which are contrary to their beliefs.

 Whatever the reason for it, faculty who opposed the corruption of the university didn't speak out or display any measure of solidarity in those years, said Pierce. He contended that if they had been bolder and had stood together they would have been able to prevail in many instances. Especially they would have prevailed if the Trendies had been rooted enough as people to do more than align themselves with whatever happened to be in the wind at the moment. But the Timids sat tight and the Trendies went along with what was fashionable, and the result has been the tyranny of political correctness in American higher education. Pierce said the modern university has become "an enemy asset." 11 But honesty and courage at the right time, he asserted, thirty years ago when all of this was catching hold, could have prevented what he views as a great tragedy.

 Pierce expressed intense disdain for modern-day academics who oppose what is going on in the university but won't fight against it, employing the strongest language when describing them I have heard from him. "They are lickspittles [servile flatterers, toadies] and hypocrites, liars and wimps, without the slightest trace of manliness, honor, or self-respect," he declared. "They teach doctrines which they know are false. They grovel at the feet of the Jews and other minorities in order to keep their jobs. They present the worst possible example to young people. It is pitiful to behold, truly disgusting." 12

 In the "Brainwashing in America" broadcast, Pierce reported that, in an address to the faculty, the president of Rutgers University pointed out that on the average blacks possibly may not have the genetic qualities to meet the same standards set for white students. Pierce said the media picked it up and there were calls for the president's head. But instead of the Rutgers president defending what he said and backing it up with evidence, he began groveling and apologizing, whining and begging, and going on about how he hadn't really meant what he said. "Truly pathetic," snarled Pierce.

 Pierce says that traditionally universities have had two purposes. The first has been--and, to his mind, still should be--to train scholars: mathematicians, chemists, historians, philosophers, and so on. The second purpose has been to instill in a leadership elite of young people a sense of commitment to their civilization so that they could maintain and add to it. "The civilization that our universities were a part of was unmistakably and unapologetically Western," he argues, "which is to say, European--or, if you prefer, White." 13

 Pierce says that one can still get a technical education in an American university, by which he means in fields such as engineering and medicine.

 What isn't available now, however, according to him, is the kind of liberal education he favors, one that transmits knowledge about our Western heritage and invokes a sense of responsibility to contribute to the survival and improvement of our culture and our race. Pierce says today's universities are in the business of indoctrinating students with a party line that is anti-white, anti-European, and anti-Western. He believes

 universities have become weapons to destroy white European culture. In post-secondary education, Shakespeare and Milton are out and contemporary black writers (Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou) and pop culture courses ("The Gangster Film") are in. Students raised on television and permissiveness and most likely not among the elite academically--these days, mediocre high school students fill up colleges eager to take their tuition money--too often choose the fun courses, the trendy courses, the trivial courses, instead of the serious, demanding ones.

 Pierce particularly decries the state of history and literature in modern universities. These are the subjects where the "Red Guards," as he calls them, have most left their mark. He says he knows why that is the case.

 History is an inherently racist subject...because, in the first place, it involves the study of what peoples and individuals have actually done, not what the theorists of democracy and equality would like to have us believe they have done. History gives us continuing proof of the fact that there is no equality in the world. It is the record of heroic accomplishment and outstanding virtue on the part of some, contrasted with the chronic ineptitude and appalling iniquity on the part of others. In the second place, it provides the indispensable basis for a sense of peoplehood, a sense of rootedness, a sense of racial identity. It is not something you want to spread around when you are trying to reduce a population to a mass of rootless, cosmopolitan, interchangeable human atoms....

 And literature... well, that's at least as dangerous as history. Who can read the Iliad without his blood beginning to race and without feeling a connection to those ancient people and events? Who cannot be moved by the same spirit that moved Homer? And that spirit has nothing to do with the sickly spirit of democracy and equality. And then there's Shakespeare! There was never a man who observed the human condition with truer eye than he....The great danger in literature--in real literature, in great literature--for the democrats and the egalitarians is that it helps us to understand ourselves in the context of our people. It helps us to complete

 ourselves and become whole. It extends our horizons, helps us see the big picture. It gives us ideals, models--and those ideals, in our literature, are not egalitarian ideals. Nor are the models Politically Correct: in fact, they are much more likely to be heroes than democrats. 14

 Over the past quarter century, Pierce in his various publications--Attack!, National Vanguard, and Free Speech--has given over much space to articles devoted to the history to the white race. Examples include "The Celts: Their Origins and Pre-History," "Leonidas and the Spartan Ethos," "Sven Hedin: Last of the Vikings," and "Denis Kearney and the Struggle for a White America." (Kearney was an organizer of white workers in California in the 1870s.) Pierce has also printed pieces on writers and artists with a strong white racial consciousness such as Knut Hamsun, Arno Breker, Aldous Huxley, and Rudyard Kipling. 15 Many other examples could be cited--political leaders, inventors, military figures, explorers, and so forth, both well-known and obscure, whom Pierce views as being important in the journey taken thus far by the white race and useful as guides and as inspiration for white people now living as they (he hopes) carry on the race's upward advance.

 I don't know whether Pierce is familiar with it, but his approach to white racial studies links him to a new academic trend in universities known as whiteness studies—although his focus on what he considers to b e the exemplary aspects of the white experience contrasts with that of the other practitioners in this field. Scholars in the field of whiteness studies fall into one of two camps: those who concern themselves with the culture of "white trash"; and those whose goal is to "problematize" whiteness, that is to say, examine it either as a means of purging it of its most negative qualities—racism, for example--or of eliminating it as an individual or group identity.

 An example of the first camp is a book called White Trash. 16 This volume includes an interview by Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis of one Jennifer Reeder, who revels in her "white trash" identity. Says Reeder, "I am busty, and I am loud, and I love bad taste. I am bad taste." The book also contains essays on slasher movies, Elvis worship, hillbilly lore, and country music. In the second camp are scholars such as historian Noel Ignatiev. Ignatiev edits a journal called Race Traitor whose motto is "treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity." He says that studying whiteness is merely a necessary stage en route to what he terms "the abolition of whiteness." "There is no such thing as white culture," Ignatiev maintains. "Without the privileges attached to it, the white race

 would not exist, and white skin would have no more social significance than big feet." 17

 Examples of whiteness studies are springing up around the country. Students at Macalaster College in St. Paul, Minnesota enroll in a course called "Race, Race Privilege, and Whiteness," in which they interview their classmates about their experiences of racism and whiteness. Duke University Press has published a collection of essays entitled Displacing Whiteness. n In New Jersey, the Center for the Study of White American Culture devotes its efforts to helping "white Americans participate in building a multi-racial society." 19

 Whiteness studies is not without its detractors, however. David Roediger, the author of the book, Towards the Abolition of Whiteness, worries that white culture will unduly come in for attention and affirmation. "Whiteness," says Roediger, "describes, from Little Big Horn to Simi Valley, not a culture but precisely the absence of culture. It is the empty and therefore terrifying attempt to build an identity based on what one isn't and on whom one can hold back." 20 Professor of African American studies at Columbia University Michael Eric Dyson, whose next book will be partly devoted to whiteness, says, "There's a suspicion among African-Americans that whiteness studies is a sneaky form of narcissism. At the very moment when African-American studies and Asian-American studies and so on are really coming into their own, you have whiteness studies shifting the focus and maybe the resources back to white people and their perspective." 21 And then there is the concern of Margaret Talbot, the author of a New York Times Magazine article on whiteness studies. Talbot says in her Times piece that one unsettling question to be answered about the field is what social good it serves to heighten Caucasian awareness if in doing so you run the risk of swelling Caucasian pride. 2 2

The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds:

 An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce

 by Robert S. Griffin

Truth before fashion

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. t’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.

William Pierce

Racially Conscious White Americans Talk About Race

This book is made up of personal statements about race from seventeen racially conscious white Americans. By racially conscious I mean that, for them, the fact that they are white—other terms, European American, Euro—is more than an incidental, insignificant, or peripheral aspect of their being. Their racial identity is central to how they view themselves and conduct their lives. The people you will meet come from virtually every part of the country. None of them knew any of the others when this project began (I introduced several to one or two of the others after I had gathered the material for the book). 

What you will read is drawn from an audiotape-recorded conversation I had with each of these individuals separately (in one case it was a couple). Conversation is a more accurate term than interview for what went on between them and me. I didn’t have an interview protocol that I used with everyone. There was nothing so formal as that. Instead, I was guided by a list of topics and themes I wanted to explore with each person. I edited myself out of the transcription of each tape so that it was just a statement, or personal account, from the person I talked with. I gave each statement a title and wrote a brief preface to introduce the speaker. After transcribing nine of the tapes myself, I suddenly lost virtually all my hearing and could no longer hear the voices on the tapes. I am appreciative of Katrina Gibson’s excellent work transcribing the last seven tapes, as well as for her editorial assistance. 

The words in this book are the speakers’. I did some editing for length and to avoid repetition and maintain continuity, but I was careful not to alter, soften, or censor anything someone said. As much as possible, I want you to experience these individuals as I did, and reading back over the statements, I think you will. 

This book grows out of another book I authored, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds: An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce, which was published in 2000. William Pierce, who died in July of 2002, was a prominent figure in the white nationalist (another term, white racialist) movement. He was the founder and chairman of the National Alliance, which has around two thousand members and is headquartered on Pierce’s 340-acre property in rural West Virginia. Pierce is best known as the author of the widely read—a half million readers—underground novel, The Turner Diaries, which describes the racially motivated terrorist acts of a band of white American revolutionaries against a corrupt federal government and its supporters. 

In the process of researching the Pierce book in the late 1990s, I met a number of white racialists, some followers of Pierce and some not. After the book was published, other racially aware whites contacted me, and I met still others at various meetings and through the Internet. What has struck me about the three hundred or more people I have encountered over the past five years, and I include the leaders of the movement in this characterization, is how invisible and silent they are in the public arena. To be sure, we have a generalized image of people of this sort and what they believe: ignorant, violence-prone KKK members, menacing skinheads, and low-life or deranged thugs doing their “perp walks” after committing a heinous hate crime against minorities. The vast majority of the white nationalists I have met do not fit these stereotypes, but how would average Americans know that? These people aren’t on the television news shows speaking for themselves. They don’t make movies. They don’t publish books and articles. Politicians don’t articulate their perspective and advocate their positions. Journalists and intellectuals don’t write about them unless it is to belittle them. They aren’t on university and college faculties, and schools make no attempt to consider them objectively. 

What has also struck me about the people I have met is that, at least in my view, they have something to say that would contribute to the public dialogue and debate. I believe this society and culture would benefit from hearing what they think about race. Which is not to say that I consider them to be right about everything. I do offer, however, that, in the main, white racialists are serious and thoughtful and sincere, and they are trying to live just and honorable lives. If you find this to be true of the people in this book, know that they aren’t exceptional. They are typical. 

Denis Ruiz, whom I met in late 2000, sparked the idea of writing this book. Denis, a rather shy and reserved computer programmer from the Philadelphia area, had read the Pierce book in its original e-book format and offered to help me clean up its many typos and misprints for the print version of the book that was published in 2001. After the editing task was completed, Denis and I stayed in contact, communicating just about every day by phone or e-mail. I found him to be a remarkably bright and reflective and decent human being. Denis became a highly valued colleague and friend. He gave me direction and support in both my professional and personal life. 

In the spring of 2002, I decided that I wanted others to know the person I had come to know. I would write a book that introduced Denis and some of the other racially aware white people I had met or would seek out. I didn’t want this book to be about leaders of the white nationalist movement such as Pierce but rather everyday people like Dennis. Mainstream America wasn’t hearing from them and I thought that it should have that chance. Denis was my first interview, or conversation, and I took it from there. I started contacting people and asking them whether they would be interested in being in the book (not one person said no) and if they knew of anyone they could recommend to me. The monthly newsletter American Renaissance generously put a full-page notice in one of its issues that I was seeking people. The word spread that I was writing this book. Every day for months I received inquiries from people who wanted to be interviewed. 

In selecting those to include, I looked for people of various ages and walks of life and regions of the country, and both men and women. Some of them have asked me not to use their real names because they are worried about retaliation for expressing their beliefs, that they might lose their jobs or their children might be harassed. If they left it up to me to use their real name or not, in every case I chose not to. I didn’t want anyone to pay a price for supporting my work and doing what I think is the right and responsibility of us all: to speak out on the issues of the day. I have placed an asterisk next to a name the first time it is mentioned if it is a pseudonym.

As much as anything, this book is about what is allowed into the public discourse in America and what is excluded from it. In that light, the publishing history of both the Pierce book and this one bears recounting. My literary agent was enthused about the merits and commercial prospects of the Pierce book. However, fifteen major publishing houses he submitted the manuscript to all passed on it saying that while the book was a meritorious effort there simply was no market for it. Nobody would be interested in buying it, they told him. I suspected that the real reason for the turndowns had much more to do with the content of the book than with its sales potential. The real problem with the manuscript, I speculated, was the unfiltered reports of Pierce’s criticisms of blacks and, especially, the Jewish influence on American culture and foreign policy, which made it very unpalatable to editors and publishing houses. 

I think publishers should be free to publish whatever they want for whatever reason they choose. At the same time, I believe that no individuals and groups, whether it’s blacks or Jews or anyone else, should be free of critique and criticism. Critique and criticism are crucially necessary to a free and democratic society. I also believe the American public needs to be aware that certain topics and arguments are not reflected in the mainstream media. That is crucially important because so much of what we know, or think we know, is not derived from our direct experience but from mediated contact with reality. We haven’t seen or heard it ourselves. Someone has shown it to us and told us about it, whether in a book or an article, or on television or in a movie, or in a classroom. 

Whatever the real reason for the publisher turndowns of the Pierce book, I was left with a manuscript that I thought was worthy of being made available to the reading public. There had been an earlier manuscript of mine, about education, that hadn’t gotten published and that I believed had been blocked because of its ideas rather than its quality, and I wasn’t going to let that happen again if I could help it. A colleague told me about an Internet company that, for no charge, made manuscripts available through its web site in electronic book— e-book—format. So very late one evening, alone in my office at the university, I followed the instructions on this company’s web site and submitted a computer file of the Pierce manuscript. And as it turned out, despite all the dire predictions from editors, the Pierce book has sold extremely well in both e-book and print form. 

I decided to make another run at commercial publishers with this Sheaf book, as I eventually came to call it. I clung to the hope that I could get the imprimatur of a major New York publishing house, a spot on the shelves of Borders or Barnes & Noble, and perhaps even a review in The New York Times. So I wrote up a “pitch” letter for my agent to send along with sample sections from the book to editors to try to induce their interest. After reading what I had put together, my agent begged off from representing the manuscript. He said that the concept and samples were very good indeed, but that this manuscript would be “a very tough sell.” I contacted a few publishing houses on my own and they responded that this was excellent material, but they couldn’t risk publishing anything like this. They said that whether or not the people in the book are in fact racists and anti-Semites, they would certainly be accused of being just that, and the publishing company would be attacked for getting behind this material, and they didn’t want to go through that hassle. And besides, there undoubtedly would be major problems with distribution, as bookstore chains would be pressured not to put it on their shelves. 

I had been through this racist and anti-Semite business with the Pierce book, so I was somewhat prepared for it. Both of those epithets, as well as the rest of the litany—hater, bigot, Nazi, extremist—were relentlessly applied to Pierce. And since I was the author of a book about him and thereby associated with him, I got a taste of name-calling attacks myself in articles and interviews and when I was the subject of radio talk shows. I have come to the conclusion that these slurs are used to demonize, marginalize, and intimidate people and set them up for punishment. In my case, these smears put the focus on me, whether I had impure thoughts and what ought to be done with me, and distracted attention from the substance of what I was writing and the legitimacy of the motives and tactics of the people who were attacking me. By the time I had finished the Sheaf book, I wasn’t about to run scared or kowtow to anyone who tried to silence me or the people I write about. If this country stands for anything it is freedom of conscience and the open discussion of ideas. And if this country demands anything from each of us it is to do what we do what we think is right, and I think publishing this book is the right thing to do. 

So I have self-published this Sheaf book through an Internet publisher as I did the Pierce book. It gives you the chance to determine for yourself whether the people in this book have anything worthwhile to say, and whether what they say has any implications for what you believe and the way you live your life.

from: One Sheaf, One Vine Racially Conscious White Americans Talk About Race 

by: Robert S. Griffin

The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds

In late 1997 I wrote Pierce a letter broaching the idea of writing a book about him and his ideas. In the letter, I said:

 I'm not talking about anything authorized, that is to say, where explicitly or implicitly I have the job of fronting for you, making you look good, selling you. But at the same time, I wouldn't be aiming to demonize you or set you up as a straw man to serve some agenda of my own. I also don't want to play a game academics often play [I am a university professor], which is to stand above their subjects, as it were, and patronizingly critique them and make themselves look good in the process. What I do want to do is focus on the issues you raise and the ideas you affirm and your current activities within the context of the events and circumstances of your life, and to present it as objectively as I can. Whatever else comes through, I want who you are and what you are and where you have come from put out there for readers straight and true. I am not interested in exposes or inside journalism. I am interested in where this culture and society is heading and how we live our individual lives, and what you and what you represent have to do with that. 

 Pierce wrote back:

 Your idea is an intriguing one. I am not convinced that the things I have accomplished to date merit a biography--although I always am trying to acquire more merit. From a practical point of view, if you succeed in getting a biography of me published and it is not a hatchet job, it should be helpful. Although you might be subject to pressure from your publisher to produce a book fitting a certain stereotype of me and m y message. Anyway, it is a project that I am willing to discuss with you.

 I wrote back to Pierce that I wasn't planning on writing a full-scale, detailed biography, bringing in multiple sources and perspectives and all. Rather, I was thinking of something akin to what goes on between a subject posing for a portrait and an artist. That is to say, the book would essentially be about him and me: the way he presents himself to me and the way I make sense of and render that presentation. I said I wanted to hear him talk about his life growing up and what he has done as an adult. I wanted to learn about the circumstances in society and the people and experiences and ideas that have had an impact on him. I wanted to become familiar with the books that have made a difference to him--I'd like to read them if I haven't--and see if I can learn why they affected him as they did. I wanted to look at how his public life and private life have affected one another. I wanted to do those things in order to paint a picture of him, so to speak. So a portrait would be a more accurate way of referring to what I had in mind than a biography.

 And, really, I said in the letter, I am not setting out to do a hatchet job on you. I am not intending to write a judgmental book; rather, I want to be a vehicle that will allow readers the chance to get a good look at you and to decide for themselves what they see. I told Pierce I would stay away from slanting or channeling people's impression of him by tacking negative labels on him--neo-Nazi, anti-Semite, bigot, hater. However, he had to understand that after hearing what he has to say and reviewing what he has done with his life, readers may well decide that, indeed, those labels suit him. And as for publishers pushing me to fit him into a certain stereotype--he had mentioned that possibility--I told him that I was not going to bend reality for anybody.

 I told Pierce that I wanted to meet him in person--I hadn't at that point--and talk more about this project and see if it seemed as if the two of us could work together. I said I thought a couple of hours with one another should give us a good sense of whether we ought to keep exploring this idea. Pierce said that was all right with him, and I went to see him in West Virginia. This was in the fall of 1997. We talked for two hours in the afternoon at his office in the National Alliance headquarters building on his three hundred forty-six acre plot of land. Basically, we got acquainted. He asked me about what things were like at the university where I am on the faculty, and we talked about university politics for a time. I thought the session went well. Pierce seemed open and unthreatened--I had expected more wariness, which would have been understandable--and he was congenial and expansive. At the end of that first meeting, we decided that I should come back and spend a full work day at the property.

 A couple of months later--this was early 1998--I came back and Pierce and I ended up talking for seven hours straight. Rapport was building between the two of us and, I believe, his trust in me and belief that I brought an adequate amount of competence and commitment to this book-writing endeavor. I took notes during our lengthy conversation and wrote down my recollections and impressions afterward, but I found that I missed much of what Pierce had said. I made a vow to myself that from then on I would have a tape recorder with me. At the end of the day, Pierce invited me to stay for dinner with him and his wife Irena, so I got to meet her and see the trailer they share about five hundred yards up the mountain from the headquarters building.

 About a month later, I came back for a weekend. At that point, I proposed that I spend a month during the summer at the property working on the book. I told Pierce that I wanted to conduct a series of taped interviews with him during that time. I said that three two-hour sessions per week should suffice. Plus, I wanted to go over materials--books, tapes, letters, papers, and so on. And I wanted to just generally absorb what was happening on the property and get a feel for the place and the people who lived there. Pierce said that was fine, and I spent from mid-June to mid-July of 1998 there living with one of Pierce's assistants, a former business professor by the name of Bob DeMarais. Since that time, I have stayed in contact with Pierce. In November of 1999, I spent four days with Pierce in Munich, Germany, where he had traveled to give a speech at a rally of the National Democratic Party. I think through all of this I have come to know him very well.

 I have asked myself why Pierce agreed to go forward with the book project, and indeed he has been most cooperative. In our initial correspondence he had said that he thought the book could be helpful. What did he mean by that, and what was he personally getting out of his connection with me? I have decided that the main reason Pierce has gone along with this book is that he thinks this is a chance to become known b y a mainstream audience. He is convinced that to the extent he hasn't been ignored he and his ideas have been twisted to serve the purposes of those who oppose him. That is not to say he is right in thinking that, but lam sure that is what he believes. Also, I think the fact that I am a university professor appeals to him. He has expressed frustration to me that the academic community pays no attention to him. I believe he hopes that something I will write will reach university people, both faculty and students, and contribute to him and his message being considered more seriously by that segment of this society. And too, I believe the fact that I am an academic helps in another regard. Pierce was once a physics professor, and he and I have compatible personal styles. I am bookish and get caught up with ideas, and he is the same way. Simply, we relate well, and I think there is a personal payoff for him in a relationship with someone like me. And last, I believe I serve the need he has for someone to talk to about his life. It is a rewarding experience for just about all of us to have a listener who is truly interested in what it was like for us as a child, what happened when we were just starting out in our career, how we look at things today, and so on. It is rewarding to have someone who truly wants to hear more from us and doesn't make judgments or bring the subject around to themselves. As the days and weeks went along, I noticed that Pierce seemed to look forward to our sessions, which were from 7:00 to 9:00 in the evenings after his long workday. It was at his suggestion that we talk consecutive evenings rather than the three times a week I originally had in mind.

 As for what I wanted to get out of my contact with Pierce, I was looking for a way to deal with American culture and society in an overall, integrated way, and in an accessible and interesting way, and Pierce seemed to me to be a good vehicle for doing that. Pierce is concerned with it all and how everything fits together--history, philosophy, politics, economics, the media, education, men-women identities and relationships, child-raising practices, and approaches to leisure--and that offered me the broad canvas, the inclusive frame of reference, I wanted. I didn't think the fact that Pierce approaches these concerns from a position on the extreme end of the ideological spectrum was a drawback, because one of the ways to make better sense of what is going on at the core of American life, which is what I really want to do, is to contrast it with what is happening on its outermost edge.

 A second reason I had for investing time and energy in this project is I thought I could be helpful to others if I were to report what had come out of my experience with Pierce. It is imperative, I believe, that we know the enemy, to put it that way, and I think the consensus view is that no one is a more threatening domestic enemy than is William Pierce. I had been given an opportunity to get close and learn how Pierce thinks and behaves as well as what accounts for him--how does someone like Pierce come to be? This is a opportunity, I thought, for people to hear from this man in his own words and to look at the world through his eyes. If we are going to deal with people like Pierce, it helps greatly if we understand them.

 And a third motivation for me, one that developed as time went along: I find Pierce to be an absolutely fascinating character and his story to be a whale of a tale. And besides Pierce, in the course of putting this book together I came across a number of other fascinating--which is not to say admirable—characters, among them, George Lincoln Rockwell, Robert Lloyd, Revilo P. Oliver, Francis Parker Yockey, Savitri Devi, Elizabeth Dilling, Bob Mathews, and William Gayley Simpson. This cast of characters and their world was all new to me, and I have had the treat of a terrific, real-life movie for the year and a half I have been working on this book. I found that that alone has been enough to keep me going.

from: The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds:

 An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce

 by Robert S. Griffin