Optimistic View

For the longest time I, like every other loyal TV-watcher, thought that the White nationalist movement was confined to a small lunatic fringe of bomb-throwers and madmen. However, several recent observations have led me to conclude that it has considerably more members than the media would have us believe. Although this fact is well hidden, I am convinced that on our side we have as much money, support, and organization as does the radical left. This has led me to wonder what would happen if, on one particular day of the year, all of the racial nationalists around the world staged demonstrations. If we could mobilize all of our allies, whether they be Afrikaners, members of Russia's New Right, or American skinheads, we could really put some fear into the hearts of the Establishment.
P. S.
Montgomery, NY

Editor's Reply: Probably your recent observations and conclusion are as much the consequence of your loyal TV-watching as your earlier thoughts about the state of White nationalism. The reality hasn't changed, just the way in which the media masters have chosen to distort it for TV-watchers. Besides, even if we were a lot stronger than most people think, why would we want to put fear into the hearts of the Establishment at this stage of the struggle? Let's not put them on their guard any sooner than we must.

Violent View

With reference to the reader's letter "How Much Longer?" in the previous issue and your reply, I think that you both missed a very important point. The catalyst which will generate the action needed to change the political color of America will be a deep economic depression with about a 35 per cent unemployment rate, Federal and state cutbacks on welfare programs for minorities, such as food stamps and ADC, etc.

The failure of the White public to face and take a stand on the racial and other vital issues is only a surface phenomenon. Deep inside, Whites are seething with resentment, not only against the minorities, but also against those who have imposed the minorities on them. When a score of our cities are burning at the same time, stores are being looted all across the country, and White citizens are being assaulted and killed inside their homes; when a White man must fight to take a bag of food home to his family -- then he will no longer listen to the pleas from the traitors in Washington to remain calm. The troops will be called out. It will be chaotic. The police will be powerless. The minorities will, for a while, control the cities. Then White men will organize into groups and fight back. When it is all over, White men will once again control America. There will be fundamental changes in the political posture of the nation -- changes which could never be brought about by the ballot, but which will be the result of violence.
A. McF.
Panama City, FL

Black Fantasy

Not long ago there was an episode of The Cosby Show in which Cosby had a group of his Black male friends at his house: all of them professionals, of course. One was an Army veteran of the Second World War, who recounted for the entertainment of the group how his all-Black infantry company had soundly whipped and then captured a "Nazi tank battalion" in 1945. The arrogant Black boasted that when the cowed Germans realized who had defeated them they tried to escape by fleeing into the woods. A few rounds fired over their heads from the rifles of the conquering Blacks froze them in their tracks. Now, as a matter of fact, one "Nazi tank battalion" could mop up all of Black Africa without even working up a sweat. To my knowledge there are only two documented instances of Black GIs facing off against the Germans in the Second World War. In both cases as soon as they were fired upon the Blacks broke ranks and fled like a pack of wild hyenas. U.S. military leaders were aware of the inferior military qualities of Black soldiers, and for that reason most of the latter were assigned to service units instead of combat units during the war. How many glassy-eyed television addicts realize these things today? Probably not many.
J. M.
Highland Park, NJ

Rx for Chicago

I've been looking for The Turner Diaries in bookstores all over the city of Chicago but have been unable to find it. Finally I decided I'd probably have better luck by going directly to the publisher. Why don't you try to put the book in bookstores in Chicago? I guarantee you'd be able to sell hundreds of copies to the decent folks in the Northside and out in the suburbs. Lord, this city needs an enema!
S. M. B.
Chicago, IL

Changing Mood

I recently read in my AT&T Proxy Statement your proposal concerning affirmative action. I was intrigued by it and impressed by its boldness. I'd like to know a bit more about your organization. I doubt that you will have a victory this year with your proposal, but the mood in this country is changing, and I would not rule out substantial gains in the coming decade. Keep on plugging away; you have more "silent" allies than you might think.
P. D.
Bellows Falls, VT

Appreciated Efforts

Please accept my appreciation for your stalwart efforts to eliminate the AT&T affirmative action program. I supported your proposal on this year's proxy card, as I did when it was previously offered. I will continue to support it in the future. As a stockholder I am outraged by the reduction in productivity, efficiency, and profitability which has been the result of affirmative action programs over the years.
R. L. A.
Richmond, VA

Malevolent Fungi

I have heard it said that the United States is no worse off today than was Weimar Germany before 1933, and so we might reasonably hope that a new White leader could restore health to this nation as easily and bloodlessly as Adolf Hitler did to Germany. I disagree with that assessment. Whoever holds up Weimar Germany as proof of the feasibility of an easy, "ballot box" solution for America forgets that Germany then, despite a corrupt and degenerate element in Berlin and in the elite "art" circles, was essentially a morally sound, cohesive culture, with mothers in the home, a racially conscious population dedicated to hard work, and no television.

In America today television has, besides the obvious racial and religious propaganda for miscegenation, the "Holohoax," and White self-hate, instilled a general ennui, with a jaded and disconnected attitude toward real life and struggle. It is, after all, a gigantic hallucination machine. It is a powerful medium which has infantilized and corrupted our people. There is much less time for struggle and self-improvement nowadays: our people are too busy -- watching television! Moreover, the System behind television appears as a mighty force projecting an awesome stream of fascinating images of death, sex, disaster, material goods, celebrities, and other fixtures in a mock-Olympian firmament.

I do not believe White Americans will be capable of winning this continent back again until its people return the center of their living to motherhood, family life, excellence in trades and crafts, and the sheer culture of living. There is little or no time for television in a truly healthy life-style -- even for the "good programs." There is something perverse in a roomful of grown people staring vacantly into a glowing box, however supposedly elevated the transmission. We were born to be active, to struggle, and to retain an innocence before the mysteries of life, except where we encounter them in our own lives. The average television viewer, by the time he has reached the age of 18, has seen tens of thousands of commercial sales pitches and almost as many real and simulated murders, beatings, divorces, and other intense life episodes of the sort that a Weimar German -- or any other traditional person prior to 1955 -- would only have encountered occasionally, if at all, in real life.

I have spent much time among the Amish and have discovered some of their faults as well as their strengths. One of the latter lies in the wonder with which these TV-abstainers greet life: from the boards they move through their sawmills to chance encounters with new people, life for them still holds awe, curiosity, and mystery. They are fully engaged, and their attention span is enormous.

Television is only part of the story, of course, but there is no doubting its baleful effects on our people. It has made us less united, less moral, less sensitive, less engaged, and more perversely indifferent. If the authors of The Silent Brotherhood are to be believed, the match that ignited Robert Mathews' tinder box was the sight of TV-satellite dishes popping up like malevolent fungi across America's previously isolated farmland. To him these were an intolerable harbinger of decline.
M. A. H.
Temecula, CA

School Mischief

My seven-year-old daughter came home from school today, and, as usual, I asked her what she had learned. She replied that she had learned about the North Pole.

"Well," I said, "tell me about Admiral Peary."
"Who's that?" she asked.
After the shock wore off a sick feeling began coming over me. "Then tell me about Matthew Henson," I said warily.
"He's the man who discovered the North Pole and stuck a flag in the ground," she replied. I shall be paying a visit to the school tomorrow to speak with her teacher (who is White, by the way) and get to the bottom of this.
S. H. G.
Sevierville, TN

Women and Feminism

I have to say that I winced a few times while reading your letter to subscribers of September 19, 1989, which was enclosed with your catalog. The letter seems to me insensitive to the women in the racial movement. There is a pretty clear anti-woman and "just among us men" tone which is inappropriate for a letter intended for mass distribution. In the sixth full paragraph on the second page, for example, you say: "Nevertheless, it is clear that there has been a real decline in manliness among White males. It was, after all, White males who handed the franchise to women in the first place. And, both before and after 1920, White males willingly gave up what once had been exclusively theirs by inviting non-Whites to share political rights with them." One clear inference from this statement and several others in the letter -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that women, including White women, stand in the same adversarial posture to White men as do Blacks and other non-Whites. White women, in other words, are not part of "us"; they are part of "them," the enemy, and White men need to fight back at them. A second clear inference is that your conception of manliness requires disenfranchisement of women. I don't know how I feel about the enfranchisement of women -- or about popular enfranchisement in general -- but I am certain that we cannot attract intelligent and capable women to the movement by treating them as part of the enemy and telling them what we are going to take away from them.
G. A.
Mt. Airy, MD

Editor's Reply:

The subject of feminism -- more generally, of the proper role for women in a White society -- is a sensitive one, and the remarks on the subject in my letter of last September 19 drew a flurry of responses, of which the one above is a good example. In part the responses were based on a misinterpretation of my letter, and that may be more the fault of careless phrasing than of careless reading. But it also is clear that there is real disagreement on this subject among people who agree on many other issues.

The controversy has led to the addition of a couple of new books to the National Vanguard Books catalog (see, for example, Davidson's The Failure of Feminism), and in the future additional titles on feminism, sex roles, the family, and related topics will be made available to readers. I should make an effort to clear up any misinterpretation now, however, by restating the thesis of my letter and elaborating on parts of it. The thesis was not that women have emasculated men, as some who read my letter seemed to think, but that the changing roles of the two sexes is evidence of the declining manliness of White men in America -- and of fundamental flaws in our society. It is not a reflection on women to point out, as I did in my letter, that the commandant of cadets at the U.S. Military Academy is a 19-year-old girl, and that that isn't good for the country; it is a reflection on American men and what they have let happen to their country.

Nor am I expressing hostility toward women when I suggest that the 19th Amendment has hastened the decline of America. I am simply recognizing the fact that women as a whole tend to have slightly different responses to political issues than do men, and that the net effect of their votes has been to move the country closer to the brink than it would be if they did not have the franchise. An example is the current move to strip Americans of their right to keep and bear arms: women certainly are more susceptible, on the average, to the false claim that everyone will be safer if the private ownership of firearms is prohibited. But recognizing that women vote differently than men on some issues is not an attempt to blame women for the general foolishness of the American electorate, male and female.

Most of all, I am not suggesting that there should be an adversarial relationship between White men and White women. One of the developments of recent decades which has been most distressing to me, in fact, has been the increase in hostility between the sexes. But that has not been my doing; it has been the Jews and the radical feminists who have coined the phrase "minorities and women" and attempted to build an anti-White-male coalition. I am a White racial chauvinist, but certainly not a male chauvinist. The race will not survive unless both White men and White women are determined that it shall and work together toward that end. But it also will not survive unless those of us who have committed ourselves to its survival face all the facts of our situation squarely, so that we can deal with them intelligently.

Some racially conscious White women undoubtedly are offended by the assertion that the profession of arms should remain a male profession, except in extraordinary circumstances. Probably even more are offended by the suggestion that they should stay out of politics (as should most men, for that matter). I do not think that we help our situation, however, by dissembling on such issues in order to avoid offense. White men and White women -- at least those of us in what the writer of the last letter above called "the racial movement" -- should be completely honest with one another.

One of the first facts we should face is that the feminist position is almost diametrically opposed to the interests of the race. Feminism -- and I refer only to the "moderate" variety, not the radical, man-hating version -- by asserting that men and women are essentially the same and should have the same roles in society, not only is a denial of reality, like every other form of egalitarianism, but it is an especially dangerous sort of spiritual poison, which divides the race against itself.

Even without the perversely divisive ideology of feminism in the picture, however, and even without some of the more incendiary issues, such as those associated with the ill-fated Equal Rights Amendment and with women in the armed forces, the gender-related changes which have taken place in American society in the last few decades have had dire racial consequences. Foremost among these is the lowered fertility rate for White women. The present birthrate is well below that required to maintain the White population. The non-White birthrate, in contrast, though also decreasing, remains well above the replacement level. The net result of the lowered White birthrate is that even without the effects of miscegenation and the flood of non-White immigrants pouring into the country the racial balance still would be shifting from White to non- White.

Many influences affect birthrates, but the most significant influence has been the decline in the strength of the White family since the Second World War. And the most significant contributing cause of the decline of the family has been the departure of American women from the home and their entry into the labor force.

Lip service is still paid to motherhood by the politicians and the media masters, and a majority of White women still aspire to it, but it is quite clear that the growing involvement of women in economic activity outside the home has lowered both their aspirations and their attainments in this regard. It is by no means entirely a matter of choice, of course. Whereas it used to be that one breadwinner was able to support the average American family, nowadays many young couples are able to pay their living expenses only if both are earning wages. Working women still have children -- but far fewer on the average than the women of a couple of generations ago who were supported by their husbands.

The official propaganda to the effect that the American standard of living has improved greatly since the war is true only in the sense that there are more gadgets available to the American consumer today. But paying for those gadgets -- and for food, shelter, clothing, transportation, medical care, and taxes -- far more often today than then requires two salaries instead of one. And when working women do become mothers, their children become day-care orphans. Where there is a choice the consequences often are even more damaging. On the average, it is the brightest and most capable young women who have succumbed to the lure of a career in business or a profession instead of in homemaking and motherhood. Their brightness gives them a choice not so readily available to their more ordinary sisters: higher education or early marriage. When they choose the former, and then go on to become attorneys, physicians, editors, or business executives, all too often they are past their prime childbearing years before they even consider marriage. A distressingly high percentage of such women remain childless all their lives.

So how should a post-revolution White society order itself to overcome these problems? It is unlikely that we will be able to return to the farm and village life of past centuries, which provided such an ideal environment for breeding the race: an environment in which women were able to participate in the economic life of the community, as the wives and helpmates of farmers, craftsmen, and merchants, and still make motherhood their principal occupation. And it should hardly be either necessary or desirable to impose a Mediterranean or Middle Eastern regimen on women, in which their options are so narrowly restricted that motherhood becomes the only course open to them.

What we will need to do at the most basic level is change a few economic constraints and a few attitudes. We will need to make it economically feasible for a larger percentage of young couples to maintain themselves on the salary of the husband alone; where both must earn income, we must provide more opportunities for the wife to engage in her economic activity inside the home, perhaps in some cases with cottage-industry piecework and in others with computer terminals. And we will need to reverse the feminist propaganda which has denigrated motherhood and glorified power-oriented careers for women.

Undoubtedly there always will be individual women with good genes who will eschew motherhood, the Amelia Earharts and Emily Dickinsons, just as there will be individual men of high quality whose need for solitude or thirst for adventure or intense involvement in creative work will minimize their chances of becoming fathers. If the society itself has been restored to health, however, with a strong sense of racial consciousness and racial purpose, with its laws and institutions reflecting that purpose and with its media of information and entertainment in the hands of responsible members of the society, then feminism, along with homosexuality and other sex-role aberrations, will become insignificant problems, and most of the men and women of the society will bear their masculinity or their femininity with joy and pride and will find personal fulfillment while fulfilling their obligations to the race as men or as women, respectively. In openly avowing our aim to build such a society, are we really telling women "what we are going to take away from them"? Women may still study the law if they really wish to do so, or aspire to become prize fighters or corporate raiders or cops. But they will no longer be encouraged in those aspirations by the attitude-forming organs of the society -- and no one will be obliged by law to hire them or promote them simply because they are women. Undoubtedly, feminists will feel threatened by our aim. So also, I suppose, will effeminate men who do not want to be burdened with the responsibilities of real men; a man who prefers to wear the apron around the house while his wife wears the overalls or the business suit may not relish the prospect of a new society in which his sort of behavior is no longer encouraged or admired. But no spiritually healthy man or woman with a normal hormone system should feel deprived in a society which encourages and helps him or her to be what Nature designed him or her to be. And it is only those men and women whom we want for our movement.

State of the Nation

Americans seem to lack the ability to organize anything serious or to work together as a team, perhaps because they've never really had to face danger in this country. They seem to lack any comprehension of a "we feeling" and see all problems in individual, personal terms, rather than as something we could overcome together if we were organized. Many people have no idea at all what the word "organize" means. Even in simple clubs they show no dedication to a common enterprise.

Americans seem to "turn off" as soon as anything negative is said about anyone, no matter if it can be proved a hundred times that what is said is correct. They equate "niceness" with validity. People today also seem to know less and less about any political ideology or concept. The "educated" ones simply accept egalitarianism as a fact of life, not as one set of beliefs opposed to others, as was still the case in the 1960s. It's all they've ever heard. Many of these people, although they have university degrees, are shockingly deficient in general knowledge. They've never heard of Schopenhauer or Nietzsche, have no idea when firearms appeared or whether or not there's still a country in Europe called Bavaria. And the high school graduates never heard of Napoleon or know what the Monitor was.

On the plus side, there seems to be a White backlash building in the cities. Working-class White youths have virtually no future, since the real government of this country has seen fit to ship all of our heavy industry overseas, leaving them the choice between drugs and serving fries at McDonalds. The few conscientious White youths I know are working several part-time jobs just to pay the bills. They are thoroughly disgusted with the System and are ripe for anyone seeking to form a movement.

A major issue with the White working class is the aforementioned transfer of heavy industry and jobs from the United States to Asia, and the consequent dependence on imports. I work in a factory. The more intelligent workers feel sold out by everyone. Even the old middle class is being destroyed. We are becoming a nation of part-time service workers on the one hand and yuppies on the other. Store goods are either Asian garbage or too expensive to buy. The White youths here, as in England, feel lost and displaced by the increasing hordes of Hispanics and Orientals, as well as by the Blacks.

I know the same feeling exists on some college campuses: Penn State, for one. Young Whites sometimes are speaking out against Jews and Blacks. They need only some direction and leadership. They don't know that organizations such as the National Alliance exist. Perhaps some of these working-class campuses and neighborhoods should be saturated with simple handbills.
C.G.
Lancaster, PA

Race Treason in South Africa

At midnight on Tuesday, March 20, 1990, the South African flag, which had flown over South West Africa for 70 years, was lowered for the last time, and South West Africa became "Namibia." The curtain came down on the final betrayal of the luckless Whites of that territory by the South African government of F.W. de Klerk. They have been abandoned to the mercy of the Black terrorist Sam Njoma, now the president of that hapless country, whose hands already are stained with the blood of hundreds of Whites.

The same fate now awaits the Whites of South Africa. The De Klerk government has turned its back on the Whites and is promoting the interests of the International Money Establishment, whose aim is to install the recently released Black terrorist Nelson Mandela as president here as soon as possible. That could be as early as December 1991.

The only salvation left to the Whites now is Jaap Marais' Reconstituted National Party (HNP) and its allies, the Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB) and the Boerestaat. The HNP during its 21 years of existence has repeatedly and consistently warned of the fate being prepared for the Whites of South Africa. For most of that time the warnings fell on deaf ears, for what is not immediately apparent is not believed by the average person. Since the ruling party called itself "national" and still does, it was inconceivable to its supporters that it could be guilty of treason and could shamelessly be plotting the surrender of their country, for which their forefathers had shed their blood.

Things have changed drastically now, however, and many thousands of people are flocking to the meetings being held countrywide by the HNP, the AWB, and the Boerestaat. These groups are presenting a united front in a last-ditch stand against the iniquitous betrayal by the De Klerk government to the African National Congress and the South African Communist Party. They have called on the opposition Conservative Party to cooperate in the only option now left to Whites: namely, to walk out of the parliament and force the De Klerk government to the polls, where the latter will find that it has no mandate for its proposed capitulation. Jaap Marais and Eugene Terre' Blanche, leader of the AWB, are making speeches everywhere and receiving an enormous response.

South Africa is the last bastion of the White world on this continent, and it must not be allowed to perish like Rhodesia. The South Africans are a heroic people, especially the Afrikaners, and they are prepared to fight to the end, but they need encouragement and support from their friends abroad. Your encouragement can do much to bolster their morale and steel them against the never-ceasing flood of propaganda from the television and other liberal media, which urge them constantly to accept the De Klerk government's infamous "reform program" of capitulation and integration -- which is nothing less than race suicide. And funds are needed from abroad to allow us to mobilize all of our forces on behalf of South African Whites.

Violence and disorder are increasing daily here under De Klerk's policies, just as Mr. Marais warned him would happen. We must restore our government to patriotic hands soon, and we need your help. Remember, ultimately your fate is tied to our fate.
S.v.H.
Braamfontein, South Africa