Classic EssaysWilliam Pierce

The Club

One of Dr. Pierce’s most interesting and compelling messages; it answers the question: Why is it that the policies of all Western governments have been in almost perfect ideological lockstep for more than half a century?

by Dr. William L. Pierce

WE HAVE SPENT much of our time during the past three months examining the significance of the September 11 attack and the government’s response to that attack, both in America and in the Middle East. And there are a hundred more facets of this subject that we could discuss.

For example, during the past week the TV screens have been full of Mr. Bush’s program of providing Christmas gifts for Afghan children, while he continues to bomb their country. I don’t know what Muslims think about Christmas gifts, strictly from a religious standpoint, but I can imagine what they must be saying to each other, from a patriotic standpoint. Suppose that we were in an all-out war with China, and the Chinese government, after destroying our cities with a surprise nuclear attack, announced a program of gifts for American children while they continued to mop up American resistance to a Chinese invasion of our country. The Chinese premier would announce that the war was not against the American people, but only against the capitalist-terrorist government in Washington, and that the Chinese were truly concerned about the welfare and happiness of American children. I suspect that most of us would be inclined to tell the Chinese to take their toys and stuff them. Of course, it should be clear to anyone with half a brain that the toys-for-Afghan-children program is strictly a public relations stunt aimed at American public opinion and that George Bush cares no more for the children of Afghanistan than he does for the Taliban prisoners of his Northern Alliance buddies, who are still being tortured and murdered.

We also could talk more about the conflict between the Jews and the Palestinians and the attitude of the politicians over here to that conflict. The Jews are continuing to send murder teams into Palestinian towns to murder Palestinian leaders, still sending bulldozers to destroy the homes of the families of suspected Palestinian resistance fighters, still sending helicopter gunships — supplied by the United States — to shoot up Palestinian police stations for the purpose of killing the Palestinian prisoners being held there that Arafat has had arrested on suspicion of opposing the Jews, and no politician over here ever has a complaint about this Jewish terrorism, and that’s the only word for it: terrorism.

Yet whenever the Palestinians strike back at their oppressors, whether with a suicide bombing or some other attack against the Israelis, Mr. Bush and virtually every other politician over here immediately and loudly denounce it as “terrorism.” This week the governor of the state of New York, the present and future mayors of New York City, and a passel of other American politicians are all over in Israel, wearing yarmulkes to show their solidarity with the Jews in our “common fight against terrorism.” And Mr. Bush, on orders from Mr. Sharon, refuses to meet with Mr. Arafat because Arafat, he says, isn’t doing enough to stop Palestinian terrorism.

The crookedness and hypocrisy of this whole relationship between Israel and the United States really turns the stomach of any honest observer, but I guess it still plays well enough on American television to keep the lemmings fooled. Anyway, just remember all of this crookedness the next time a lot of Americans lose their lives in another reprisal attack from the long-suffering Muslim world, and the Bush crowd tells us that the attack was “unprovoked.”

Well, as I said, we’ve talked a lot about the Middle East situation recently, and we don’t want to neglect the other very important things that are happening around us. We could discuss the extraordinarily depressing situation in South Africa and Rhodesia, where things have continued downhill since the last time we talked about the increasingly precarious position of White people there. Black dictator Robert Mugabe in Rhodesia seems hell bent not only on driving the last White Rhodesians out of their country but also on destroying Rhodesia altogether.

Black rule in South Africa is carrying that once-proud White nation deeper and deeper into savagery and depravity. South Africa has the highest incidence of rape of any country in the world, and one in every eight Black South Africans is infected with HIV or has full-blown AIDS. The belief is widespread among Blacks that sex with a virgin — or more generally with an uninfected woman — will cure AIDS: supposedly the woman’s uninfected body draws the infection out of the body of the man who is having sex with her. Because the HIV infection rate is far lower among White women than among Blacks, White women increasingly are the targets of Black rapists, as are infants of either race. A recent series of gang rapes of South African infants, as young as five months old, has caused shock even in that crime-ridden country, although there has been very little news in America about the rapes. The media here, having played the key role in bringing Black rule and subsequent ruin to South Africa, largely have ignored the consequences of their destructive work.

If there is a pattern to be seen in all this, it is the deliberate destruction of independent nations, the deliberate wrecking of patriotic governments everywhere and their replacement with more corruptible governments, governments more easily controlled by alien forces. That is what has happened not only to South Africa and to Yugoslavia within the past decade, but it is what the U.S. government tried to do to Iraq a decade ago and seems determined to try again to do in the very near future, as soon as it finishes off Afghanistan.

The crippling of Iraq and Afghanistan is understandable solely in terms of the conflict between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East and the Jewish control of public opinion in the United States. When we consider also the U.S. government’s bombing of Belgrade and the economic and diplomatic pressure that undermined the White government of South Africa, and when we also look at domestic governmental policies in the United States and in virtually every country in Europe, a much larger — and much more sinister — pattern emerges. The big picture that we can see is a concerted effort to decrease national autonomy everywhere; to break down national traditions and national and racial consciousness; to force everyone into a uniform, cosmopolitan mold; to subject people everywhere to a central authority controlling every aspect of their lives.

This big picture has been given the name “New World Order” by its partisans. The first major actor in the campaign to impose the New World Order on an unwilling world who used the name in public was George Bush’s father, during the latter’s term as President ten years ago; at least, he was the first person I heard bragging about it. But the campaign has been going on much longer than that. The planning was well underway early in the last century, but it took a communist revolution and two horribly murderous and destructive world wars to destroy the old world order — the White world order — and make way for the new.

And really, it is only when we look at the major events of the past century in the light of a deliberate, widely concerted effort to destroy the political and social order of the White world that we begin to see a pattern, and things start to make sense. Why, for example, would two great, capitalist nations — the United States and Great Britain — ally themselves with the communist Soviet Empire to destroy a third great, capitalist nation, Germany?

Certainly, there were various motives at work. There was longstanding ethnic animosity, as between Germans and Poles and between French and Germans. There was the greed of British capitalists for a bigger part of the market that their competitor, Germany, was sharing with them. Capitalists had, in other circumstances, shown themselves quite capable of mass murder and nation wrecking in their greed for more wealth. But really, none of this is a sufficient explanation for the Second World War and its aftermath. Many British capitalists may have been willing enough to see German economic power destroyed, but I doubt that they planned on seeing the destruction of British economic power and the postwar dismantling of the British Empire, or the rise of the Soviet Union to a dominant position in Europe.

To me the most compelling evidence of a plan behind the disasters of the 20th century is the astounding uniformity of government policy everywhere in the Western world: really, nearly everywhere in the White world, that emerged after the Second World War. Today, for example, every White country has opened its borders to a flood of non-White immigrants from the Third World, and they are pouring in: France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, England, Scotland, even Ireland. If a popular vote were held in any of these countries as to whether or not the flow of non-White immigrants should be continued, the continuation would be overwhelmingly rejected. But, just as in the United States, the people are never given an opportunity to reject non-White immigration. They are never asked their opinion on the matter. An overwhelmingly unpopular program is crammed down the throats of the people because the top politicians — presidents and prime ministers — support it, and the rest of the politicians go along obediently.

So why are the top politicians from every country in the White world marching in ideological lockstep? Why is there such uniformity of policy? It certainly wasn’t that way 100 years ago. It used to be that there was a great deal of individuality among political leaders and national policies. The prime minister in Britain had one style; the chancellor in Germany had another; and the President of the United States had a third. Where are the individuals today who reflect the national peculiarities of their own people?

Well, of course, individuals do come along occasionally: Austria’s Jörg Haider, for example. He was in favor of cutting off the immigration of non-Whites into Austria, because that’s what the Austrian people wanted. When Haider’s party won enough votes for Haider to implement some of his policies, the top politicians in all the other countries went berserk, recalling their ambassadors, threatening trade embargoes, and worse.

The problem with Haider was that he wasn’t a member of the Club. The top politicians throughout the Western world were recruited into the Club by the planners before they were elected to public office. Candidates for the Club are selected, in most cases while still university students, and are initiated into a multinational society of young men on the make: ambitious and unscrupulous young men who have the requisite social skills for becoming successful politicians and who are willing to sell out their people in return for the Club’s support for their personal advancement.

This is an old idea. To a large degree it is the idea behind every political party: join our party and follow our party line, and we’ll provide the money and the organization to get you into public office. There’s more to the Club, though. For one thing, it’s multinational. For another, it operates like a secret society instead of like a political party. It’s not subject to the laws that are supposed to govern political parties in most countries.

In the past there have been other secret societies with political agendas, of course: even multinational secret societies. The people behind the international communist movement constituted such a multinational secret society. The huge advantage that the Club has — the Club to which George Bush and his father and Bill Clinton and Tony Blair and nearly every other political leader in the White world belong — its huge advantage is that its board of directors includes the people who control the mass media throughout the Western world.

It used to be that every country had its own mass media. Nowadays you can see the same Hollywood products on TV screens in Germany or England or the United States. Sometimes the local language is dubbed in, and sometimes it isn’t, but the multicultural filth of MTV flows into the minds of young Swedes and Britons and Germans just as it does into the minds of young Americans. Because of this the Club can ensure the political success of its members nearly everywhere.

Well, there’s more to it than that, but the key is that increasingly globalized mass media give increasingly globalized political control to the men who control the media. It is a natural thing that men who have the potential for exercising this political power would turn to the obvious tactic of recruiting front men to be actual electoral candidates. The media bosses themselves are not all Jews, but most of them are, and it wouldn’t look good if they tried to fill the top political offices themselves. Besides they already are pretty busy running their media empires, and most of them don’t have the personal traits needed to gain the affection of voters. So they recruit political candidates and then use the Club’s power to make political leaders of them.

The Club’s recruitment of potential political leaders is not quite like the recruitment of potential executives by IBM or General Motors. The Club doesn’t exactly hire them and put them on the payroll. Instead it gives them Rhodes Scholarships and other perks. It opens doors for them. It invites them into social circles where they can rub shoulders with the superrich and powerful and ruthless. It helps them forge new connections. It dazzles them with the lure of money and status. It offers to buy their souls from them for a very good price indeed. And when they sell, they are thenceforth bound to follow the party line.

I said that the Club operates like a secret society, but it’s really not all that secret. There’s nothing that a member of the Club, if he later became disenchanted, could tell to the police that would lead to arrests or could announce to the public that would lead to outrage. The members of the Club understand the rules well enough without having to swear any oaths or sign their names in blood. They understand what they are receiving from the Club and what they must give in return. They understand that if they stop giving they will stop receiving. And they understand the power of the Club to take away from them what they already have received from the Club.

The Club isn’t even quite like a fraternity. Some of its members hate or despise other members. They often scheme and fight against one another for a bigger share of the Club’s favors. But they do obey the Club’s rules. They do follow the Club’s policies.

It’s a loose sort of thing, in that not everyone in public office belongs to the Club. But if someone not in the Club becomes too popular or begins acquiring too much influence, the Club keeps a close watch on him and may order the Club’s members to attack him, the way they have attacked Austria’s Jörg Haider and France’s Jean-Marie LePen. The Club even tolerates a certain amount of erratic behavior from its members. But at its core the Club is hard and disciplined, and its leaders know exactly what they want.

They want to bring the whole White world more and more tightly under their control. They want to eliminate every challenge and every potential challenge to their rule. They want to stamp out every influence and every idea that might become a danger to them, and that includes every nationalism and every religion that they haven’t already infiltrated and corrupted. To this end they have been working to break down all national borders, pollute all ethnically clean populations with a flood of non-White immigrants, wipe out all sense of racial identity or loyalty, erase the memory of all traditions and all history, and undermine discipline and morality everywhere. They promote the hip-hop anti-culture of non-White savages; they promote homosexuality and feminism; they denounce every voice of opposition to themselves as “hate” and every act of opposition as “terrorism.”

They corrupt and they destroy, so that they can suck out the lifeblood of the world. They employ George Bush and his crew now the way they employed Bill Clinton and his crew earlier and the older George Bush before that. They are largely Jewish, but not entirely. They are waging war now to break the power of militant Islam, which they see as a danger to Israel, but they are as strongly entrenched in Hollywood and New York and Washington as they are in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

If our race is to live and if our civilization is to survive, we must destroy them and those who work for them before they have gone much further with their own evil work of destruction. Destroying the Club and its adherents will be an extraordinarily difficult and dangerous and inevitably bloody task, but no matter how bloody, that is infinitely preferable to permitting the Club to continue with its evil activity unopposed.

I can understand why some people strike out at the Club with acts of terrorism, but I do not believe that terrorism by itself can defeat the Club. Control of the mass media of news and entertainment is what gave the Club its power and enables it to keep its power. Before the power of the Club can be broken and its members and its policies can be discredited and neutralized, the Club’s control of the media must be broken. These weekly American Dissident Voices broadcasts are one small step in that direction. The books published and distributed by National Vanguard Books are another small step. The resistance music distributed by Resistance Records is another step.

But all of these things that I and the other members of the National Alliance are doing are not enough by themselves to break the Club. If I reach 100,000 White men and women each week with this broadcast, the Club can reach 100 million each day with its poison. The only way that we can destroy the Club and its evil is for you to do more than listen to me speaking. You must speak out yourself. You must multiply your own voice by persuading others to speak out also. You must persuade people you know who aren’t listening to these broadcasts to begin listening.

And please, don’t tell me that you can’t speak out because you will be expelled from your university or fired from your job or investigated by the FBI or divorced by your wife or disowned by your parents if you do. It’s time now for an end to excuses, for an end to cowardice and timidity. I don’t want anyone to be expelled from his university or fired from his job. In some cases that will happen, although in most cases it won’t. Most people have exaggerated fears, groundless fears. But groundless or not, the time is growing very late, and if you don’t speak out, if you don’t do everything you can and do it now, you betray not only your nation and your civilization and your race, you also betray yourself.

Speak out! Act now! And if you want to work together with others who are speaking out and acting, become a member of the National Alliance.

* * *

Source: Free Speech magazine, January 2002

Previous post

France: Facebook to Turn Over Data On Its Own Users if Deemed "Haters"

Next post

Strategic Relocation and Volkish Coagulation

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.