Classic EssaysWilliam Pierce

Has the White Race Become Too Liberal to Survive?

William PierceThis editorial is a condensation of a talk given by Dr. William Pierce (pictured) at the weekly Sunday-evening meeting of Washington-area members, supporters, and friends of the National Alliance on June 5, 1977.

by Dr. William L. Pierce

IF YOU HAVEN’T yet read Jean Raspail’s best-selling horror story, The Camp of the Saints, you should. Reading it is not a pleasant experience, but it is a valuable experience, a consciousness-raising experience.

The essence of Raspail’s book is an unarmed, non-violent invasion of Europe by a starving horde of refugees from India. The Europeans, who are morally paralyzed by a terminal case of liberalism, are unable to resist the invasion. In particular, they are unable to accept the only feasible method for opposing it, which is simply to exterminate the invaders en masse. So the wave of brown subhumanity rolls over Europe, and Western civilization is extinguished forever.

Raspail’s fiction is especially terrifying for White American readers, because we can clearly recognize, all around us, exactly the symptoms of the liberal disease which Raspail describes so starkly in his book. In fact, we can see a painfully close analogy between the European reaction to the fictional invasion which takes place in the book and our own reaction to the very real invasion of the United States by illegal immigrants from Mexico which is taking place today.

Chicanos from Mexico and other parts of Latin America and Blacks from the Caribbean are swarming across the U.S.-Mexican border at a rate of more than a million a year now — and that’s not counting the additional half million non-Whites who immigrate into this country legally each year — and all we seem to be able to do about it is debate the issue.

There is undoubtedly a certain element of conspiracy behind this non-White immigration problem. For example, the U.S. Border Patrol, which has the job of keeping illegal immigrants out, has been deliberately kept undermanned and underequipped, so that it cannot do its job effectively. The Border Patrol has been sabotaged by the subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives which deals with matters of immigration and naturalization and which oversees the Border Patrol and appropriates the funds for its operation. This subcommittee is headed by Joshua Eilberg (D-PA), who is a Jew.

The man formerly in charge of the Border Patrol (before Jimmy Carter appointed Chicano Leonel Castillo as his replacement earlier this year), retired Marine Corps General Leonard Chapman, repeatedly told the Congress about his problems and requested more money and more men, but Congressman Eilberg deliberately sat on his requests. The result has been that the Border Patrol is able to put only one man on duty for each 10 miles of border, along some stretches, and the immigrants come pouring across almost without resistance.

And there are other factors. We have politically powerful alien groups already in this country — most notably the Jews, but also others — who see a future for themselves which is brighter the darker it becomes for the White majority. They see the greatest opportunities for themselves in a racially cosmopolitan society, just as they see the greatest threat to themselves in a unified and racially conscious White majority.

An Italian Coast Guard vessel rescuing a boat full of Tunisian migrants off the coast of Lampedusa in 2011. A state of emergency was declared in Italy after 4,000 immigrants arrived in just 4 days following the fall of Tunisia's ruler.
An Italian Coast Guard vessel rescuing a boat full of Tunisian migrants off the coast of Lampedusa in 2011. A state of emergency was declared in Italy after 4,000 immigrants arrived in just four days following the fall of Tunisia’s ruler.

And we also have all too many White renegades in the political and economic power structure of this country, people who habitually prostitute themselves for alien interests or who see their own political power base among aliens: the Hubert Humphreys and Teddy Kennedys and Jimmy Carters of America; and people who are making money from the alien presence here: the sweatshop owners and the exploiters of migrant farm labor.

But in addition to these causes a more fundamental reason why we’re unable to deal decisively with the immigrant problem is the moral paralysis of the American public.

An editorial in a recent issue of U.S. News & World Report (May 30, 1977) gives what I believe is an accurate assessment of the inability of most White Americans today to face tough issues and deal with them realistically. The editorial is a plug for Jimmy Carter’s clever proposal to “solve” the problem of the enormous number of illegal immigrants in the United States by the simple expedient of legalizing them, i.e., of granting most of them automatic citizenship or legal-resident status — which is about like “solving” the crime problem in this country by abolishing all our laws.

After asking the question, “Should all those now illegally in the U.S. be sent home?,” the U.S. News & World Report editorial gives its own answer: “Whatever one may say in theory, Americans are not going to clamor for a mass deportation in which millions of women are hounded out of closets and children are dragged from under beds by their feet. Since these people are not going home, then we have a choice: Leave them as outlaws . . . or give an opportunity for citizenship or legal residence to those who have already established themselves here, thus bringing them into society where they can contribute and be counted.”

Now, the author of that editorial is U.S. News & World Report editor Marvin Stone, a Jew. He has the same interest in increasing the number and variety of non-Whites in America — thus further weakening the political strength of the White majority — as have Mr. Eilberg and the other Jews on the Congressional subcommittee overseeing the U.S. Border Patrol. And he, therefore, jumps a bit too eagerly to his conclusion that “these people are not going home.”

Nevertheless, Marvin Stone is almost certainly correct in stating that the American majority has no stomach for forcibly removing the aliens who are already here or, as he points out later in his editorial, for using “machine guns and mine fields” along the border to keep more aliens out.

The essential truth to note here is that this inability to act against the rising tide of colored immigrants is, at root, not primarily due to the fact that White Americans are disorganized, or to the fact that they are being betrayed by their government, or to the fact that they have been deliberately confused and demoralized by the lying, alien-controlled news media. It is primarily due to the fact that they have become too liberal.

Perhaps “liberal” is a misleading word to use here, for we are talking about a condition which affects all segments of the political spectrum, so-called “conservatives” as well as liberals. “Morally spineless” or “morally irresponsible” might be a better adjective to describe people who simply refuse to deal with problems which require tough or unpleasant decisions.

Americans pale at the thought of dragging all those millions of brown-skinned children and their mothers out from under beds and herding them back across the border at bayonet point into Mexico, where most of them would undoubtedly starve to death. So they grope for a “nice” solution to the problem — but there is none.

There is no “nice” solution, because those millions of non-White immigrants are breeding like flies. Within the next ten years the illegal immigrants who are already here will have produced approximately 15 million more offspring — and, in accord with the jus soli, those offspring will automatically be full-fledged U.S. citizens, whether the status of their parents has been legalized or not. Present U.S. law grants automatic citizenship to any featherless biped born inside our borders, even if both parents are aliens and even if they’re here illegally. That may sound crazy, but it’s a fact.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th President of the United States, lighting the National Menorah for the first time in 1979.
Jimmy Carter, the 39th President of the United States, lighting the “National Menorah” for the first time in 1979. He is one of many U.S. Presidents who were subservient to organized Jews, especially with regard to non-White immigration.

Actually, the situation is much worse than that. Not only will we still have virtually all the present illegal aliens with us ten years from now, plus their 15 million or so naturalized-by-birth children, but also all the new illegal (and legal) aliens — who are coming across the border at an ever-increasing rate — and their children.

And if Mr. Carter grants citizenship to all or part of the ten million or so illegal aliens already here — I suppose I should say when he grants them citizenship, rather than if — then they will be entitled to send for their dependents still in Latin America. They average five such dependents each, for a total of as many as another 50 million.

The great majority of these illegal aliens are Chicanos (mestizos, Amerindian-White mongrels), and they are the fastest breeding race on the face of the earth. There is literally an inexhaustible supply of them in Latin America. No matter how bad the economy gets here, and no matter how many half-measures we take to make it harder for them to find jobs, they’ll keep pouring in, if we let them, because conditions will always be even worse where they came from.

So the “nice” White American majority, which doesn’t have the guts to do what needs to be done now, is guaranteeing that its own grandchildren will become a minority race in the United States.

Perhaps some Americans — the ones who have the courage to even think ahead 50 years to the White minority United States their irresponsibility is guaranteeing — believe that when we become the minority we’ll receive the same consideration we’re giving to other minorities now. That is the sort of hope one might expect of a race of moral jellyfish, and it is a forlorn hope. Once we allow the non-White races of this world to gain the upper hand, we’ll get from them exactly what we will deserve, which is extinction. The muddle-headed liberalism which makes us shrink in horror from prodding picaninnies with bayonets is a uniquely Western disease.

Why is that so?

Why, for instance, do Whites sheepishly accept the condemnation of any of their efforts to maintain White exclusivity in schooling or housing, while the largest and most active Chicano group in this country, La Raza Unida (The United Race), proudly supports among Chicanos the same kind of racial solidarity of which Whites seem to be ashamed?

Why, for instance, are White Americans of all social strata and political persuasions horrified by the fact that Uganda’s Idi Amin is exterminating, root and branch, the tribes in his country he doesn’t trust, when Africans consider such behavior perfectly normal — even if some of them are unhappy with “Big Daddy” Amin at the moment for other reasons? When the Nigerian majority was suppressing a rebellion by the Ibo minority a few years back, they killed everyone they could get their hands on, women and children as well as men, and often in the most gruesome ways imaginable. The Watusi and the Bahutus are treating each other the same way today in Burundi. That’s the way Africans have always behaved.

Why, for instance, are White Americans importing uncounted thousands of half-breed children from Vietnam, Thailand, and other Asian countries, when the natives of those countries reject them precisely because they are half-breeds?

Why, for instance, do the hearts of White Americans — and Canadians and Englishmen — ache for the hundreds of millions of destitute brown people in India and Pakistan, in their rags and filth and hunger and hopelessness, when their better-off brown countrymen couldn’t care less about them?

And we might also ask why conservative and right-wing Americans are so fascinated by the present controversy over how many Jews were actually killed by the Germans during World War II — why they are so anxious to prove that our White cousins in Germany didn’t actually commit genocide — when the Jews themselves have just chosen as their prime minister in Israel their foremost advocate and practitioner of large-scale genocide against Palestinians? Does anyone believe that the Jews are ashamed of the fact that Menachem Begin massacred the Arab inhabitants of whole Palestinian villages, that he had his men in the Irgun slit the throats of hundreds of Palestinian women and children, or that he tortured to death British soldiers who fell into his hands? Begin himself has written a book bragging about these things, and they were even admitted in Time and Newsweek magazines a couple of weeks ago.

The Hoax of the 20th Century CoverProfessor Arthur Butz has written a very fine book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, which the National Alliance sells, in which he conclusively proves that the Jews have vastly exaggerated their losses at German hands, but so what? Why should we think better of the Germans — and, therefore, of ourselves — just because they didn’t actually gas six million Jews during the war?

Part of the answer to these questions is that Whites have, as an inborn racial characteristic, a more highly developed altruism than other races. The impulse in the White race-soul which gave rise to chivalry, for example, is unknown to the mestizo, to the unassimilated Jew, and to the African Negro. It may very well be that we have child abuse in this country, that we are often brutal toward women and prisoners and others over whom we have an advantage, but these things are nothing compared to the brutality which is natural and habitual among the non-White races of this earth.

Our altruism is a wonderful thing, and we must never lose it. But we must learn to direct it exclusively toward the members of our own racial community. When it is not coupled with a healthy xenophobia regarding other races, then it becomes an especially swift form of mass suicide.

Misdirected altruism, undiscriminating altruism, is part of the answer. Another part is that our over-civilized lifestyle during the last century or so has made us too morally soft, too squeamish in the presence of Nature’s realities. The old cycle of birth, struggle, and death still holds, but we like to pretend that it doesn’t.

We don’t want to accept the fact that the world and its resources are finite, and that the more there are of them, of other races, the more tightly we will be squeezed.

We don’t want to face the truth that when a race’s birth rate is high, then either its death rate must be correspondingly high or it must expand at some other race’s expense — as is the case with the Chicanos and us today. We are afraid to accept the responsibility for making sure that the former of those two possibilities is the one that holds.

One example of misguided white altruism are some of the activities of the Peace Corp organization, where many Whites travel to non-White countries to "empower" families by providing education and monetary aid to these families and communities.
Misguided White altruism: The Peace Corps organization sends many Whites overseas to spend years “empowering” non-Whites.

We don’t want to realize that had our ancestors not killed a great many American Indians and squeezed the rest of them into reservations, we’d all be mestizos now, Chicanos, and there would be no United States as such.

In the old days, when each of us had to kill his own meat before he could eat, our understanding of these things was less clouded. Nowadays we still like our steak rare, but we look down on the butcher.

And we still enjoy all the luxuries and advantages of our White birthright, but we have become ashamed of the fact that a great deal of blood — non-White blood — was spilled in establishing and maintaining that birthright during tens of thousands of years of prehistory and history. If our ancestors had been “nice” to the non-White and the partly White races they came in contact with, we wouldn’t be here today.

Relative to the current immigration crisis, what this all boils down to is that, while we may still be ready to shoot down armed troops storming across our borders, we are not ready to do the same to unarmed, brown-skinned women and children, who are just as dangerous as armed troops in the long run.

Unwilling to shoot, we instead indulge ourselves in liberal fantasies about America being “big enough for everybody” and optimistically assume that if we grant citizenship to the non-White hordes already here and pass a few laws to make it a little harder for the ones still pouring across the border to find jobs, everything will work out all right, with no unpleasantness for anyone. We seem to have forgotten that granting citizenship to our Negro slaves more than a century ago has made them no less Negroes than they were before — but has made them infinitely harder to live with.

And so we find ourselves, as a race, slowly sinking in a cesspool of colored sub-humanity, able to calculate that within another two generations the filth will be over our heads — and yet unable to act to save ourselves. That is where the White majority of America stands today.

And the situation is different only in degree throughout the rest of the White world. In southern Africa the situation is more critical than it is in the United States. In Canada, Australia, Britain, and most of Europe it is not yet as critical as it is here, but we are essentially all in the same boat. When the boat goes down, we all drown, those on the upper decks just as surely as those on the lower decks, even if a bit later.

And it need not be so. If we could snap out of the moral paralysis which grips us, we have the physical means to settle the racial threat facing us in an instant and for all time. If we could once again, as a race, face up to the simple but profound truth that we are not living in some huge, worldwide nursery school, where all we have to do is enjoy ourselves and be nice to everyone else, and some kindly schoolmaster up in the sky will keep us from getting into any really nasty jams — if we could wake up from that dream — then we would be well on the way toward a solution to our problem.

Ultimately we need to go a bit further and relearn the eternal wisdom that there can be no life unless there is also death; that there can be no progress, no evolution, except when the kingdom of life is hierarchical in structure, not equalitarian; and that the hierarchy of life is determined by struggle.

No race remains long at the top of that hierarchy unless it retains its moral superiority — its will — as well as its physical superiority. It has always been that way, and it is that way today.

If one wants to be perverse, one can distort that wisdom into something altogether different, and that is exactly what the disseminators of the liberal poison which keeps us paralyzed have done. They tell us that man used to live according to the Law of the Jungle, which says “kill or be killed,” but that now we have risen above that law, and it no longer applies to us.

In the old days, they say, man lived a very brutish and unpleasant existence, always fighting and killing, all his energies absorbed in just staying alive, all his ingenuity devoted to plans for killing his neighbors. Then gradually we learned that killing is wicked; that inequality and domination are wicked; that everyone is really the same, regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin; that no group has the right to decide the fate of another group; and that if we will all love one another and abide by the Golden Rule instead of the Law of the Jungle we will all be healthy, wealthy, and wise and live to a ripe old age.

It was only when we rose above the Law of the Jungle that true civilization became possible, with station wagons and backyard barbecues and Sammy Davis, Jr., for everyone. And, of course, we will lose all these wonderful things if we abandon the Golden Rule and go back to the Law of the Jungle again — that is, if we drag all those little mestizos out from under the bed, hustle them back across the border, and then do whatever it takes to make sure they stay there.

Very roughly, that is the philosophical claptrap which is used to justify our present rate of moral paralysis. For the more sophisticated moral basket cases among us it is dressed up with lots of additional rhetoric about world opinion and the brotherhood of man and the necessity of staying in the good graces of the Third World, but that is its essence. And it is, of course, total nonsense.

There is nothing brutish about accepting the facts of life. Being realistic, being mature, being morally responsible, does not mean a descent back into the jungle — quite the contrary.

Nor does it mean being bloodthirsty. The morally responsible person is not an insensitive person or a crude and violent person or a person motivated by hatred. He may love animals and children and poetry — but he faces the facts, whatever they may be.

He accepts his responsibility for the state of affairs in the world around him whenever he is in a position to influence those affairs. And he is ready to kill — without hatred, without passion — when killing is necessary, instead of wringing his hands and moaning about not having the right. He understands that the Creator bestows the right upon those who are fit to bear it.

Contrary to liberal dogma, not only our civilization but our very existence today is a consequence of the fact that our ancestors understood the above truth, at least intuitively, and acted on it. We will lose both our civilization and our existence in very short order if we do not begin to understand it also.

  * * *

From Attack! No. 54, 1977, transcribed by Anthony Collins and edited by Vanessa Neubauer, from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

For Further Reading

Previous post

The Nature Of The Beast

Next post

The Organizational Nexus

No Comments Yet

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.