American Dissident VoicesAudioKevin Alfred StromRadio

How William Pierce Saw the World, part 1

William Luther Pierce

American Dissident Voices broadcast of May 11, 2019

by Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen to the broadcast

BE WATCHING the Cosmotheist Books online bookstore later this month for the eighth CD in our Power of Truth series of the best radio broadcasts and speeches of the founder of the National Alliance, Dr. William Pierce. This eighth Power of Truth CD, like the others, will be an mp3-CD and hence will have a full 20 speeches of Dr. Pierce on it, around ten hours of audio, far more than any ordinary CD and one of the best bargains. Unlike the the other CDs that preceded it, though, this one will feature several speeches that are unavailable anywhere in digital form, speeches that we have newly digitized from the original master tapes — speeches that no one has heard for over a decade and a half. You might call them Dr. Pierce’s “basement tapes,” and I am sure that you will enjoy hearing them — and enjoy using them as recruiting materials to bring other worthy people into our National Alliance community. They’re coming soon — so keep an eye on cosmotheistchurch.org.

* * *

WE HAVE over 250,000 people reading National Vanguard every month, it’s certain that many of them are people new to our ideas. For the recovering “normie,” understanding just where we’re coming from can be daunting. He or she is likely to make the mistake of thinking that the National Alliance and its online magazine National Vanguard are just another “pro-White” effort — or think that we are the embodiment of the mindless “hater” character that our enemies have created in order to scare away the kind, decent White people who ought to be joining and helping us — or think that we are Christians — or think that we are just a part of the “alt-right” jokester and trolling club, or boosters of the latest right-wing Twitter star — or think that we are “right-wingers” at all. We are none of those things.

The National Alliance is something unique. Something different. Something permanent. The National Alliance has a worldview grounded in reality, in science, in our people’s nature and history — not an ever-changing platform; or a set of “talking points” designed to attract the maximum number of followers, being careful never to offend their most cherished beliefs, or that changes depending on what we need to say this week to “boost our numbers.”

To best understand us, you need to begin by understanding the ideas of our founder, the revolutionary thinker and writer Dr. William L. Pierce. To that end we now present part 1 of the introduction to Dr. Pierce’s worldview included in the masterful biography by Robert S. Griffin, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds, read by Vanessa Neubauer. Listen:

* * *

In a number of radio programs and writings, Pierce has outlined his perspective on the nature and history of those he considers his people – white Europeans – and offered his vision of their future in this country. I drew on eight of these sources to compile the following statement. The words below are Pierce’s. I have added headings to put them into context.

Rediscovering our roots

A SOCIETY is a very complex thing: it is like a living organism. It responds to selective environmental forces, and it evolves. In past ages it was the struggle of our people to survive, the competition of our people against other peoples, other races, which determined the nature of our society. Societies which functioned well survived. Societies which didn’t function well perished. Historically, if some crazy liberal came along and was able to change all the rules and structures in a society to suit some egalitarian fantasy of his, the society would sink like a rock, and its people would perish. And that is what is happening to our society today, although it may not be apparent to us because of the time scale. After the experimenters finish their deadly work, it may take a society two hundred years to disintegrate completely and sink out of sight. That’s not long from a historical viewpoint, but it’s long enough so that most of the people involved never realize what’s happening.

The society we had in Europe up until the end of the eighteenth century – or one may say, the various societies there, which really were very much alike when compared with any non-European society – had evolved over a period of many, many generations of our people, and it had fine-tuned itself to our special nature. It had developed its institutions and its ways of doing things which suited us as a people and allowed us to form viable, efficient communities. When we colonized North America and other parts of the world, we took the essential elements of our society with us.

And what were those essential elements?

The first essential element was order. Everyone had a place in our society, whether he was the village blacksmith or the king, and he knew what that place was. He knew how he fitted in, what his responsibilities were, to whom he owed loyalty and respect, and to whom he in turn was obliged to provide guidance. It was a hierarchical society. There was no pretense that everyone was just as capable or just as creative or just as brave or just as suited for leadership as anyone else. People had social rank and social status and social authority commensurate with their social responsibilities and with their contributions to society. The master craftsman had a higher social rank than a journeyman, who in turn had a higher rank than an apprentice. The landowner with a thousand acres who employed a hundred workers on his land had a higher social rank than the man who only owned an acre and worked his land himself, but he also had more social responsibilities. He had a responsibility for the welfare and discipline of his workers, for example. And the master craftsman had a responsibility to provide proper guidance for his apprentices and to uphold the standards of his craft.

The fact that our society was orderly and people knew their place didn’t mean that it was inflexible. The apprentice, through diligence and talent could become a journeyman; and a journeyman might eventually become a master. And the man with only one acre might buy more land and hire workers if he used the land he already had in a productive way and accumulated savings. But the shirker or the wastrel or the incompetent could never expect that the government would tax his more successful neighbors in order to reward him for his failure and bring him up to their level.

The second essential feature that our society had was homogeneity. Everyone had the same roots, the same history, the same genes, the same sensibilities. Or at least, there was enough genetic similarity, there was a close enough family relationship among the people, so that people understood each other. A village, a province, a nation, was like a large extended family. People felt a sense of kinship, a sense of belonging, a sense of loyalty and responsibility that extended to the whole society. This feeling of belonging, this sense of a common history and a common destiny, this sense of identity, was the glue that held the society together and gave it its strength. And it gave men and women their individual strength too. Just knowing who they were, where they had been, and where they were going made an enormous difference in their sense of personal security, in their ability to plan ahead and be reasonably confident of what the future held for them.

This homogeneity and the consequent sense of family, of identity, was thousands of years in developing, just like the hierarchical order in our society. And we developed as individuals, we evolved, along with our society. The type of society we had became imprinted on our genes. Of course, it wasn’t a perfect society. It was full of problems and imperfections. We always were developing new technologies, for example, and our society didn’t always have time to adjust itself to these innovations before even more innovations came along. But it was a society in which we were strong and confident and more or less spiritually healthy.

The Industrial Revolution really was a huge shock to our traditional form of society. It took people off the farms and out of the villages and packed them into factory towns like sardines in a can. This was a great strain on the old order. The new relationship between factory owner and factory workers was not as healthy a one as had existed between landowner and workers on the land, nor was the new, urban lifestyle as spiritually healthy as the village lifestyle.

We were learning gradually to cope with some of the changes in our society which accompanied the Industrial Revolution – our social order gradually was beginning to adjust itself – when the liberals and the Jews launched their assault. Unrest and revolution were fomented from the latter part of the eighteenth century and throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: egalitarianism, communism, democracy, equal rights, no responsibilities, welfare programs, feminism. The old order was drowned in blood. In France the aristocrats and the landowners were butchered in response to the resentments which the liberals had stirred up among the rabble. Later, in Russia the same process took place when the Jewish Bolsheviks finally gained the upper hand and butchered not just the aristocrats but everyone who had worked a little harder and been a little more successful than the rabble. The kulaks – small farmers and landowners – were murdered en masse, by the millions, in order to “equalize” Russian society and destroy the last traces of the old, hierarchical order.

Amid the social chaos of the twentieth century, the enemies of our people were able to introduce their idea of racial equality alongside their idea of social equality. We were told that the descendants of our slaves are just as good as we are – maybe better – and so they should become our social equals. We should bring them into our schools and neighborhoods, and we should intermarry with them, and we should buy food stamps for them with our taxes, and we should give them preference in hiring and promotions. And we should open our borders to all of the non-white wretched refuse of the Third World’s teeming shores. They also are our equals, we are told. The more diversity the better. Diversity is our strength. Blah, blah, blah.

We were too disoriented and confused by the destruction of our social order to resist this poisonous propaganda. And so here we are at the beginning of the twenty-first century. There are some people who will try to convince you things have never been better. We certainly have more equality and less order, more diversity and less homogeneity than ever before. And that obviously suits some people, in addition to the liberals and the Jews who are pushing for these changes.

But are these changes better for us? The suicide statistics, the drug statistics, the crime statistics, and the mental illness statistics give us a part of the answer. These statistics should help us keep our grip on reality when the Jewish media try to persuade us that we need more of the same poison they have been dishing out for so long: more equality, more chaos, more diversity. We should be able to look into our own souls for the rest of the answer. We should know that we need again to have an ordered, structured society, in which we all have a place and will be appreciated according to how effectively we fill that place. We should know that we need again to have a homogeneous society, in which we can feel a sense of belonging. We should know that we need a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty. We should know that we need a society in which everyone strives for quality, not for an imaginary equality. We should know that in order to be spiritually healthy again we need a society in which we can feel a sense of rootedness and responsibility rather than the aimless, wandering, rootless, cosmopolitan egoism which characterizes American society today…

The limitations of democracy

There are two principal reasons that democracy has turned against our people: first, the results a people obtain from a democracy depend on the quality of the electorate; and second, the influence of the mass media on the democratic process has been overwhelming.

The first reason simply tells us that we should expect a democracy to work better when we have a responsible, intelligent, moral, and racially-conscious electorate than when we have an electorate of overweight couch potatoes, basketball fans, trendy airheads, and hymn-singers. And certainly the average quality of white voters has declined sharply from the time of the Founding Fathers to the present. Today, we have a less manly and much softer, more impressionable, vulgar, and irresponsible electorate than we had in the nineteenth century – and I’m talking only about white voters.

The influence of the mass media on this more feminine and impressionable electorate – an influence which has become overwhelming in this century with the development first of radio and then of motion pictures and television – has made a mockery of the whole concept of democracy as a system of government by the mass of the people who make their choices on the basis of their own innate values and attitudes. The masters of the mass media can and do manipulate the emotions and the opinions of the public on every issue of importance to themselves. They can and do set the political fashions of the day. They can and do form the image in the mind of the public of every candidate for public office.

Democracy in America today is no longer rule by the mass of people; that is only the outward appearance of our system today. What we really have is an oligarchy, and the oligarchs are the people who own and control our mass media. Through the manipulation of public opinion and the images of candidates, the mass media constrain the flow of public policy within boundaries chosen by their masters. The really disastrous thing about this oligarchy is that the oligarchs are for the most part not even of our people but rather are of a people wholly alien to us.

The consequences of rule by this alien oligarchy, which hides behind the pretense of democracy, is that we have amoral and irresponsible political leaders whose only concern is pleasing the oligarchs and thereby advancing their own careers… They are politicians – really, more actors, more showmen, than statesmen – who are addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people and nations, but who have no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people they pretend to lead. With democratic politicians of this sort, obedient to the will of the hidden oligarchs of the media, white people have been led into two horribly destructive and fratricidal world wars in this century which killed millions of the best people in our race, wars which led to the rise of communism and to its flourishing for more than seventy years, wars which weakened our race to the point that the oligarchs are now in the final stages of consolidating their domination of us in what they gloatingly refer to as their “New World Order.”

If the modern world has become such that real democracy no longer is feasible, if we mustbe ruled by oligarchs, then let us do whatever we must do to insure, first, that those oligarchs are of our own people and not of an alien race; and second, that they are moral, responsible, and racially-conscious men whose primary concern is the destiny of our race. We can have that.

The nature of patriotism

What has changed in America during the past fifty years to erode the sense of patriotism so much? If you think about it for a minute, you’ll know the answer. The average white person can no longer look on America as his family. He no longer feels a part of it. It’s just the place in which he happened to have been born and happens to be living. He no longer feels a sense of kinship with all other Americans. The reason he doesn’t is primarily the result of the enormous increase in what liberals and the media fondly call “diversity”: that is, the great increase in the number of people with whom we feel nothing in common – people with different roots, people who look different, think differently, behave differently, and have different values – people whom we cannot even imagine being part of our family. When we look at America and see a great many people like that, when we see all of this “diversity,” then we no longer feel ourselves a part of America. We no longer feel a sense of loyalty to America…

The Jews in the media still hate and fear patriotism as much as ever. They have tried to make it a dirty word. And they have succeeded pretty well among the trendy yuppies and the urban rabble over whom they have the strongest influence. They hold up the militias as the epitome of patriotism, and they try to frighten the lemmings with the specter of the angry, rural, white male with a gun and an American flag who is threatening the government which provides them their welfare checks…

Of course, Jews understand the idea of loyalty based on blood, on kinship, on common roots. That’s the kind of loyalty they have for each other and to Israel, but they don’t want us to have that. They know how powerful that is. They hate the idea of us being united by such a sense of patriotism. They hate it and fear it. And that is why they’ve been working so hard to undermine old-fashioned American patriotism and replace it by allegiance to a faceless, raceless, rootless, cosmopolitan New World Order – under their control, of course…

No matter how fashionable they make their idea of a New World Order among the liberals and the politicians, it is an unnatural idea. Liberals may gush about equality and the “brotherhood of man” and the human race being the only race to which they feel loyalty, but that is empty sophistry. Fools may let themselves be convinced that they have become raceless, cosmopolitan patriots – patriots of the New World Order – but one will find very few of them who are willing to die or even make any major sacrifice for this new pseudo-patriotism.

Real patriotism is not some artificial idea dreamed up by the Jews. It is something based in our genes, an instinct, an extension of the instinct for self-preservation to include our kin, our nation. One can undermine that patriotism by muddying and confusing the concept of nation, the image of nation, as has been done during the past half-century by promoting “diversity.” When the enemies of our people, with the collaboration of the treasonous politicians in Washington… when these enemies infiltrate tens of millions of immigrants into our country and stifle any effort to halt the flood, when they subsidize the breeding of a non-white underclass in our cities with our own tax money, when they force us to accept these growing non-white masses into our schools and neighborhoods and workplaces, when they saturate all the news and entertainment media with the alien faces, alien tones, and alien antics of these non-whites and gloatingly tell us that we’d better get used to the idea of becoming a minority in our own land within the next fifty years, then, of course, the patriotism which came naturally to our people in the past becomes meaningless…

The process of social atomization, of deracination, of separating people from their roots and cutting the bonds to their natural communities so that they can become interchangeable units – human atoms – for building the New World Order is being promoted ruthlessly by the Jews and their collaborators, and the rising incidence of treason is only one of the smaller and less important consequences of this genocidal process.

I say this process is genocidal, because it will certainly destroy us as a people, as a race, as well as destroying us as a nation. People with no sense of patriotism are people unable to defend themselves collectively. They are people who will be victimized by any group which still has a group feeling…

We let our idea of patriotism gradually drift from a racial idea to a geographical idea, a political idea. When our ancestors in Europe were defending their people against the Huns or Moors or Turks, they understood patriotism. Even after the rise of all of Europe’s national states, when patriotism began expressing itself as nationalism, it still had a racial – or at least an ethnic – basis. The words themselves tell us what their original meanings were. Patriotism, of course, comes from the Roman word for “father.” Patriotism is love of the fatherland, love of the land inhabited by all the people descended from a common father. Nationalism also comes to us from the Romans, from the Latin word for “birth.” A nation is a group of people related by birth, by blood, and nationalism is love for that people, loyalty to that people. These feelings of patriotism or nationalism are very powerful feelings, because they are natural feelings. They contributed to our survival over a very long period of evolution.

But when we forget the racial meaning of patriotism and think of it only in geographical or political terms, as loyalty to every person, of whatever race, color, or creed, who happens to be living within a specific geographical area at the moment, then patriotism is no longer a natural feeling, but instead becomes artificial, and consequently much easier to subvert. And that is what has happened… to more and more white Americans all the time, as the growth of “diversity” proceeds.

The cure for this disease, for this erosion of patriotism, is not difficult to find. It is obvious. It is simply to understand and assimilate our patriotism as it originally was. The cure for what is happening to America begins by returning to the natural, race-based patriotism that our ancestors had….

* * *

Thank you, Vanessa Neubauer. Be sure to be with us again next time, when we will present part 2 of “How William Pierce Saw the World,” right here on American Dissident Voices.

* * *

You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance. The National Alliance is working to educate White men and women around the world as to the nature of the reality we must face — and organizing our people to ensure our survival and advancement. We need your help to continue. Please send the largest contribution you can afford to National Alliance, Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. You can also help us by visiting natall.com/donate. Once again, that address is Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to never give up.

Listen to the broadcast

Previous post

A WASP “Jew”: Harvard University’s Robert D. Putnam

Next post

Who Is Guilty?

3
Leave a Reply

avatar
3 Comment authors
Kevin Alfred StromΧωρίς Όνομαcc Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
cc
cc

Mr. Strom, the Federal intriguers are guilty of the horrors you have outlined in the text above. The actors and actresses on the Potomac.

The modern catchphrase Nation State is a euphemism for consolidated despotism. Diversity is a euphemism for a Parade of Strangers. The opposite of what we call — cousin dozen of a dozen cousins — in the South.

The Federals use beautiful White women to promote debauchery.

comment image

comment image

Χωρίς Όνομα
Χωρίς Όνομα

Hello, in the third paragraph of this article it says: “The society we had in Europe up until the end of the eighteenth century – or one may say, the various societies there, WHICH REALLY WERE VERY MUCH ALIKE WHEN COMPARED WITH ANY NON-EUROPEAN SOCIETY – had evolved over a period of many, many generations of our people, and it had fine-tuned itself to our special nature.” The capitalization is mine to focus on the …”offending phrase” that did strike me as very odd and something that I can hardly believe as WLP’s idea. How are WE to believe that at the end of the 17th century OUR European societies were VERY MUCH ALIKE with ANY NON-EUROPEAN societies? Which societies did the negros of Africa, the aborigines of Oceania, the… Read more »