[color="Sienna"]What Is Moral?
By Dr. William Pierce

http://www.natvan.com/pub/2002/011202.txt

Hello!

A few days ago I spoke with a friend who is a historian and a writer and
is interested in many of the things we discuss on these weekly
broadcasts. He congratulated me on the growing influence of American
Dissident Voices. He said, and I quote: "Many more people than you
realize listen to your broadcasts. They mail the texts to many other
people. I meet many people at universities and in other countries as
well as here in southern California who listen to your broadcasts and
talk about them with each other."

My response was: "Then where are these people when I need them? Why
don't I hear from more of them? Don't they realize that I can't continue
doing these broadcasts all by myself forever? The country is going down
the drain, and all that these people you mention are doing is talking
about my broadcasts and sitting on their hands. Why don't they help? Are
they afraid that they'll be kicked out of the country club if they
associate with me?"

My historian friend said that it isn't fear that keeps these people from
contacting me; it is their moral concerns. In the past, he said, my
broadcasts were very harsh, very brutal. I talked about ethnic cleansing
and approved of genocide and other things that these people find
shocking, he said. They won't support any cause unless they feel that it
is a just cause. They think that I am willing to hurt too many people.
They feel that I have no Christian constraints. They would rather commit
suicide than become associated with an unjust cause, my friend told me.

I responded to him: "Don't these people believe that making a decent
world for future generations of our people is a just cause? Don't they
believe that preventing the extinction of our race and our civilization
is a just cause?"

My friend didn't really have a good answer for that, but I gathered from
his response that he believes my approach to our problems is too
"rough," too uncivilized, too un-Christian for the people he talks with,
and it makes them uncomfortable. Then he congratulated me on becoming
more acceptable in the last year than I was before. He says that I do
talk now about the issues in a way that is easier for these people to
relate too, and he thinks that has a lot to do with the fact that more
people are listening to the programs now and discussing them with their
friends.

Since this conversation with my friend a little more than a week ago
I've been thinking hard about what he said. I believe that I understand
what he said, but I don't really agree with him. I don't really believe
that it is very meaningful to say that Christian constraints make the
academics and other perceptive people he knows hold back from the
necessarily unpleasant solutions to our race's problems. In the first
place, most of these people aren't really Christians. They were raised
in a Christian environment, and Christian moral doctrine may still have
a subconscious effect on them, but most of them are fairly intelligent
and sophisticated people. I believe that a reasonably high percentage of
the pilots and other military officers that the Bush government, and a
long line of governments before that, have sent to blast Afghan villages
to smithereens or to bomb a European city like Belgrade or to
carpet-bomb German cities are Christians: a higher percentage, anyway,
than among the academics and other people that my friend talks with. I
also think that most of them have no qualms of conscience about what
they do for a living. And these pilots, most of them, are not
Neanderthal rednecks or bloody-minded sadists. They are university
graduates who are loving husbands and caring fathers. In the past,
Christians -- American Christians -- repeatedly have shown themselves
quite capable of doing the most atrocious and bloody things without
hesitation.

The key, I believe, is social rather than religious or moral. The
concern, I believe, is not about whether a cause is "just" or not,
whatever that means, but whether it is socially acceptable or not: that
is, socially acceptable in the peer group to which the person belongs
who claims to be concerned about the justness of my cause. To tell the
truth, I don't believe that I have changed or moderated or "softened" my
message during the past year. I always have tried to tell the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and I don't hold back from
stating unpleasant facts or conclusions any more today than I did a year
ago.

I do try to avoid being unnecessarily offensive. I don't ordinarily use
the word "nigger" in talking about racial matters, for example, because
it makes so many people flinch, and I can be completely clear in what I
want to say without using that word. But that is no more true today than
it was five years ago. I've always tried to avoid being unnecessarily
offensive.

I think that what has changed is not my message but the social
environment. I believe that the social environment of most of the
writers and professors and others who talk about my broadcasts but won't
talk with me has shifted enough during the past couple of years so that
hard facts about race and the Jews are a little more acceptable than
before. I think that reality is not quite as déclassé as it was a year
or two ago.

You know, I believe that I know these people about as well as anyone. I
never was very fashion-conscious myself, even before I began saying
unfashionable things. I never worried much about whether I was wearing
the latest style in cufflinks or neckties, and occasionally my socks
wouldn't match. I probably would have been classified as a "nerd" by
most fashion-conscious people today. But I was a university professor,
and I generally behaved in a socially approved manner. I could even
figure out which fork to use for the salad in most cases, and I didn't
slurp my soup or wipe my greasy fingers on my shirt or the tablecloth.

If there was a difference between me and most of my peers, I think it
was this: they took the conventions and taboos by which we lived a
little more seriously than I did. I think that I appreciate these things
more now than I did then. Now I understand that conventions and good
manners and politeness and gentlemanly behavior are important in a
structured, well functioning society. But they are not the most
important things. Honesty and facing reality without evasion are more
important than politeness.

In the early 1960s, we all saw the society in which we lived coming
unraveled. We all could look ahead and see that very bad things were
likely to be encountered just down the road if present trends continued.
But it was not entirely acceptable to talk frankly about these things.
That is, it made many of my peers uncomfortable to talk frankly about
where racial integration was taking America. It made them even more
uncomfortable to talk about the Jewish role in the dangerous policies
being pursued by the government. I think that social conditioning was
more important than Christianity or any other ethical considerations in
imposing these constraints.

We didn't feel personally threatened by Blacks, and the people who were
personally threatened were the White manual workers at the bottom of the
White social ladder, who reacted to the threat in ways that seemed very
vulgar and uncouth to us. To us, Blacks were still the underdogs, and it
seemed uncharitable to most of my peers for Whites to attack Blacks for
wanting to better their positions. The media-generated image of sweaty,
unshaven Ku Klux Klansmen and other rednecks screaming insults at
peacefully marching Black demonstrators was an unpleasant one that made
us squirm. We certainly didn't want to put ourselves in the same boat
with the Ku Kluxers and other working-class Whites who were behaving in
such an ungentlemanly manner.

I not only understood the feeling of my peers back in the 1960s; I
shared it. Standing on a street corner and screaming insults at Blacks
or shouting "White power!" while shaking one's fist or giving a Roman
salute was not only rude and impolite, it was low class. I believe that
was what made us most uncomfortable. Despite all of the pretensions to
democracy and egalitarianism, America was and still is a very
class-conscious society. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. I
think that in a well-ordered society it is reasonable to expect the more
privileged and influential members of the society to have a stricter and
more refined code of behavior and to hold themselves apart from those
with less-strict codes. And in the early 1960s America still had a
reasonably well-ordered society.

As I already mentioned, I was a little less reverent toward things such
as the polite behavior expected of academics and professionals than most
of my peers were, and so while many of them joined conservative think
tanks and respectably conservative debating societies, I decided to say
what I thought needed to be said, polite or not. The consequence of that
decision was that the Jewish media immediately began doing a hatchet job
on me, portraying me as the sort of person that any member of polite
society would be ashamed to associate with. And so I spent the next 35
years as an outcast of sorts. It didn't bother me a great deal, because
the luxury of being able to tell the whole truth was a bit intoxicating.
Of course, I always tried to persuade other professionals to tell the
whole truth too, and a few of them did, but not many were willing to
take that step.

That's beginning to change a little now, but not, I think, because I
have become more polite or more moral. I think that it's because the
threat that we all could see way back in the 1960s is no longer distant
and theoretical. It is looming darkly over all of us now, not just over
the manual workers at the bottom of the White social ladder. But I must
say that, even as more professionals are screwing up their courage and
choosing truth instead of the country club, I am becoming more impatient
with those who still hold back from a full commitment to the struggle
for the survival of our race and our civilization.

I don't mean to seem condescending or offensive, but I do think that it
is time to quit making excuses that claim moral reservations. It is time
to face the fact that what is holding you back is not morality but fear:
the fear of being labeled a "hater" or a "neo-Nazi" by the media, the
fear of being thought uncouth or low class for finally admitting that
those low-class Whites who were screaming obscenities at Black
demonstrators in the 1960s and who were using the word "nigger" were
right. We didn't have to stand on street corners and do things in the
low-class way the Klan did, but we were obliged to do something -- we
were obliged to do whatever our positions and our abilities enabled us
to do most effectively -- and most of us dodged that obligation.

Let's talk about morality and just causes for a moment. I believe that
the most common "moral reservation" I hear from the shirkers is that the
solutions to our problems that I talk about entail the punishment of the
innocent with the guilty. Intelligent people tell me that they agree
that we should have a separation of the races. But, they protest, not
all Blacks will go voluntarily to some African country, and many of
those who won't want to go are hard-working, law-abiding Blacks. And the
same is true for the mestizos who won't want to go back to Mexico or El
Salvador. And what about the mixed-race children, whose mothers were
persuaded by Hollywood or MTV to let Blacks impregnate them? How can we
possibly have a White society again without hurting millions of people?

And my answer is that we can't, and you must decide whether it is more
moral to stand aside and permit Western civilization and the race that
built that civilization over the millennia to become extinct in the very
near future, or to hurt many people, White as well as non-White, to
ensure that both the race and the civilization survive.

When our ancestors arrived in America from Europe in the 16th, 17th,
18th, and 19th centuries, they encountered intense opposition from the
Indians, which was natural enough, since the Indians were here first and
didn't want us taking their land. But after the first few massacres of
White settlers by Indians, our ancestors rolled up their sleeves and
virtually exterminated the Indians, and I don't think they had to do a
lot of moral agonizing about it first. And it wasn't a gentlemanly war
either. We deliberately left smallpox-infected blankets for the Indians
to find, knowing that the Indians had no natural resistance to the
disease. When we raided Indian villages we killed everybody, young and
old, male and female, just like they did when they raided a White
settlement. To our ancestors, the choice was: get rid of the Indians, or
give up and go back to Europe. I doubt that moral qualms led many to go
back to Europe so as not to have to kill Indians. To virtually all of
them it was more moral to conquer the land for their descendants and to
increase the territory and the power of their race than to let the
Indians keep the land. Theirs was the morality of survival, the morality
of life.

A couple of things have changed since those days. First, we had a much
stronger sense of identity, a much stronger sense of racial community,
then than now. When it was a matter of Whites versus Indians, everyone
knew whose side he was on. Second, we lived much closer to Nature then.
We had not been softened by so much security and so many comforts, and
reality was something we had to deal with every day in order to survive.

Actually, I've oversimplified this example of Whites versus Indians. By
the 19th century some East Coast White liberals had decided they were on
the Indian side. They were Whites who had been safely established in the
cities for a couple of generations and softened thereby, and they didn't
have to face Indians on the frontier. They wrote books, gave lectures to
groups of gentlemen, and preached Sunday sermons to the credulous that
idealized the Indians as "noble savages," ignored the horrible
atrocities committed by the Indians against White settlers, and
emphasized White depredations against the Indians. Fortunately, by the
time their activities began to have much effect on public opinion or
government policy, the Indians were pretty well finished; otherwise the
population of the United States today might look much like that of
Mexico.

Today the process is somewhat similar, but in reverse. Back in the 1960s
nearly all of us already were too soft, too comfortable, too secure, and
the propagandists for a new morality, the morality of surrender and
death, already had poisoned our souls. We had to treat the Blacks
fairly, we believed. We must not accuse the good Jews along with the bad
Jews, along with the Zionists. We must not advocate anything that would
punish the innocent with the guilty. We had to have a just cause before
we could do anything. But now, with the hour of decision at hand, with
the grim reality of racial extinction before us, some of us are
beginning to understand that the morality of survival is a higher
morality than the morality of fairness. I hope that the books I have
written, and the lectures and sermons I have been giving, as unpolished
and ungentlemanly as they are, have had some small part in bringing this
understanding to some of our people.

It is time now for the polite chatter at fashionable dinners
and cocktail parties to give way to hardheaded talk and planning aimed
at saving our people and saving our civilization, no matter what it
takes, no matter how unfair we must be in claiming this planet for our
descendants. Perhaps the polite and gentlemanly Americans holding back
now may find some much-needed courage in news of developments in polite
circles overseas. In Britain, for example, the Jews and their hangers-on
in the government and the media have been complaining bitterly for the
past month about a remark the French ambassador, Daniel Bernard, made at
a very polite dinner party in London. Ambassador Bernard described
Israel as -- quote -- "that shitty little country" and asked, -- quote
-- "Why should we be in danger of World War Three because of these
people?"

The Jews are bemoaning the fact that not only did Bernard have the
courage to make that comment, but that others at the dinner party agreed
with him. I'll quote from a story in the December 23 issue of the London
newspaper, The Independent: -- quote -- "Representatives of Britain's
Jews fear that 'polite society' is embracing anti-Semitism and making it
appear acceptable. It is being nurtured, they say, around the dinner
tables of London's 'chattering classes' where Jew- and Israel-bashing
has, according to some, become de riguer. Jo Wagerman, the president of
the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said: "Anti-Semitism is raising
its head again. It has become acceptable for the first time in 50 years.
People who have a respectable veneer can express these views in public
and now get support rather than condemnation. I think much of what is
expressed is anti-Zionist in content but within that is a very strong
anti-Semitic element." -- end of quote --

And it's not just polite society in Britain and in France that is
beginning to talk at least a bit more frankly about the world's Jewish
problem. Academics, journalists, government officials, and intellectuals
throughout the Muslim world, from Iran to Indonesia, are showing
increasing willingness to speak out not just about Israel and not just
about so-called "Zionists," but about all Jews, about Jews as a race
whose monomaniacal scheming poses an enormous danger to the whole world.
There always has been an undercurrent of anti-Jewish thought and feeling
in most Muslim countries, but in most cases it was only an undercurrent.
In official circles it was denounced. The Jews in America would complain
to the U.S. government whenever an anti-Israel cartoon appeared in an
Egyptian newspaper or the foreign minister of Syria made an anti-Jewish
comment in public. The U.S. government would obediently threaten the
offending country with unpleasant consequences if the offensive behavior
continued, and the appropriate officials in that country would promise
to crack down on it.

That situation has been changing during the past couple of years,
however, and especially since September 11. Now the governments
throughout most of the Muslim world no longer are trying to suppress
criticism of the Jews but are participating in the effort to inform
their people of the Jewish menace. The influential Saudi Arabian daily
newspaper, Al-Watan, published a long, two-part article last month, on
December 8 and 9, that I might have written myself. It talked about the
Jews' ambition to control the world, from Old Testament times to the
present. It went into their scheming before the First World War to use
the war to advance their interests, and it went into Jewish media
control in depth, pointing out that the Jews everywhere work to
undermine the racial and national solidarity of their host countries.
Al-Watan, like all of the newspapers in Saudi Arabia, is financed by the
government. And at least one major Islamic newspaper in the United
States, Muslims, published in New York, has been reprinting the texts of
several of these American Dissident Voices broadcasts.

The chattering classes in America may be a bit behind those in France
and Britain and Saudi Arabia, but I do have hopes that they will begin
catching up -- soon.

Thanks for being with me again today.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

For more information on our ideas and organization:

http://www.natvan.com