Here's a transcript of the ADV broadcast I referred to in [THREAD=31318]this thread[/THREAD].

I've highlighted the portions which, when I first listened to this broadcast a couple of years ago, I had interpreted as signs of genocidal intent (towards white people). Upon closer examination, I realize that for the most part, William Pierce expressed no such intentions, and mostly favored a "soft" eugenics approach which I find perfectly acceptable (except for two instances where he recommends mandatory sterilization; I don't mind the third instance, where he recommends forced sterilization for welfare recipients after a year).

I've also highlighted portions which, contrary to what I had thought, show that William Pierce certainly did have libertarian leanings and did not feel that a totalitarian form of government would best serve the interests of North American whites.

While I still very strongly dislike revolutionary rhetoric, I must begrudgingly admit that the picture of the future Pierce paints below is (for the most part) an appealing one.

It appears I owe a partial -- but only partial -- apology to both AE and White Will. I still think many of my observations in that thread were right on target; that anyone who "gets off" on the scenarios described in The Turner Diaries is a sick fuck; that "revolutionaries" who spend their days in Internet chat rooms talking about overthrowing the government need to either put up or shut up; and I'm sick to death of hearing would-be totalitarian dictators whining about how their "rights" are being trampled on ... tough-guys whining about all the discrimination and double-standards they have to endure ... guys with the IQ of an eggplant advocating the forced sterilization of the "inferior" ... ultra-militaristic, "might makes right", Sparta-loving "warriors" crying about the fate of soldiers in Iraq ... etc. "Uniformity of message" indeed; maybe the focus should be more on "consistency of message."

ADV Broadcast of December 16, 2000

http://www.natvan.com/pub/2000/121600.txt

A White World by Dr. William Pierce

Hello!

In these talks I have with you every week, I try to choose topics of current interest, topics that are in the news -- or that should be in the news -- because it's important for all of our listeners to understand that the things we talk about in these broadcasts are real and relevant, and they demand our attention now; they are things that listeners can check on for themselves if I tell them where to check. Even when I choose to talk more about ideas than about current news, I try to tie the ideas into events, either current or historical, in order to keep listeners aware that the ideas are relevant, that they have consequences in the real world.

I want everyone always to have in mind that the essence of these broadcasts is not entertainment, and it's not even education: it's survival. It's our whole future. It's the continuation of the process of life that began on this earth hundreds of millions of years ago and is now on the brink of disaster. The reason I make these broadcasts is to move people -- our people -- to accept responsibility for where the process is going, to help pull it back from the brink, to deal decisively with those people and policies which pushed it to the brink, and then to help guide it back onto an upward path again.

But sometimes listeners tell me, "Yes, that's important, but please tell us more about the direction in which we should guide things after we overcome the enemies of our people and repair the damage done by their policies. Show us the path ahead. Tell us a little about where we want to go after we are able to plan the type of world we want."

Well, I believe that's a reasonable request. I don't like to build castles in the air. I don't like to spend too much time planning things that we aren't yet able to implement. But I think it is reasonable to think sometimes about the future even beyond those things that we have the power to implement now. What sort of world do we want to strive for? Let's dream about that for just a few minutes today.

We cannot, of course, ever return to the past, but we can compare various periods in the past with each other and with the present in order to make decisions about institutions and lifestyles, decisions about social structures and fashions and types of behavior. Different people, of course, will judge the past differently, will make different decisions about which institutions and lifestyles in the past were desirable and which were not. For example, I have one occasional listener who thinks that it would be good to return to a time when his church ruled everything, and witches and heretics were burned at the stake by the thousands. And he thinks that I should be the first to be burned.

So the type of world we strive for depends upon our values, upon what we think is important. The person who believes literally in a Biblical picture of heaven and hell and whose primary motive is to avoid being cast into the fires of hell will want a different sort of world from the completely self-indulgent person whose ideal is to be able to amuse or entertain himself in any way he chooses, and neither of these people is likely to be attracted to a vision of a world which is best for our race. So before we begin describing our ideal world, let's be sure about what is really important to us. I can only tell you now what I believe is important, but I think that many listeners will agree with me and so will share my vision of the sort of world for which we should strive.

I am a very race-conscious person, a person who is very conscious of the profound spiritual and psychical differences between my race and other races, and the world I want is one that provides the maximum scope for the spirit of my people to soar, a world that matches their inner nature, a world in which they are at home and can roll up their sleeves and go to work as if they were remodeling their own castles, a world in which they can unleash the full power of their imagination and of their creative spirit, a world in which the Faustian spirit of my people can exult in its striving to find and conquer new worlds, to perform noble deeds, and, in the words of Tennyson's Ulysses, "to follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought."

A world which matches our inner nature will be a world not too different from that in which our nature was shaped over thousands of generations in Europe. That was a world of mountains and forests and rivers and lakes and fjords and seacoasts. It was not the Semite's world of desert and bazaar or the Negro's world of jungle and dung-plastered huts, nor was it a world of asphalt and concrete and neon and billboards and diesel buses and fast-food drive-throughs and pollution-spewing factories and mile after dreary mile of tenement houses.

Well, in contrast to what I just said it seems that there is a portion of the nominally White population of the United States whose nature has been shaped during the space of three or four generations by concrete and asphalt and billboards and subway trains and trash-filled vacant lots. One sees a lot of these people in places like New York City, but [HIGHLIGHT]I'm not convinced that they should be counted as White any longer, these raceless urban lemmings[/HIGHLIGHT].

So we might begin our description of the sort of world we want by talking about the natural environment and the way in which our people should fit into that environment. [HIGHLIGHT]We need[/HIGHLIGHT], for one thing, [HIGHLIGHT]a much lower average population density than we have now in North America and in Europe[/HIGHLIGHT]. Instead of a North America with a rapidly growing population of 300 million featherless bipeds of every known ethnicity, [HIGHLIGHT]I have a vision of a continent with a stable population of 50 million European Americans[/HIGHLIGHT] -- saner, healthier, stronger, [HIGHLIGHT]better-looking[/HIGHLIGHT] [Is there a way to objectively determine whether someone is good-looking or not, or does it all boil down Pierce's taste? - Ed.], and more intelligent European Americans than is the norm for most parts of the continent today -- and no non-Whites at all. And I have a vision of these 50 million White North Americans living and working in a land of regrown forests and unpolluted rivers and lakes and clean air: a land without litter along its roads and pathways and with bears and wolves and mountain lions and eagles returned to their natural habitats and forming once again a natural part of our environment. And in my vision a substantial part of these regrown forests and unpolluted rivers and lakes are in the public domain: in fact, a continuous public domain stretching from coast to coast between and around private holdings. And I envision no cities -- certainly, none of the sprawling, noisy, congested, asphalt-and-concrete monstrosities surrounded by smoke-belching factories, clogged freeways, and honky-tonk strips with which we are all too familiar today. Towns with populations of no more than 10,000 should be adequate for commercial centers, manufacturing centers, educational centers, and any other sort of facility requiring the cooperative efforts of a couple of thousand people. I am assuming, of course, modern transportation, communication, and manufacturing methods. Even plants for smelting ore, producing steel, or making ball bearings, if designed and operated to take advantage of modern technological developments, should be able to do without the huge concentrations of labor used today.

In fact, [HIGHLIGHT]I believe that ultimately we can do without an urban proletariat altogether[/HIGHLIGHT]. Inevitably there will be dirty and unpleasant jobs to be done, jobs requiring a strong back, jobs which are boring and repetitious, even after we've automated and modernized and streamlined and computerized our industry and our agriculture and our transportation system as much as we can. But [HIGHLIGHT]we won't need a huge, blue-collar class of Joe and Jill Sixpacks doing that sort of labor all their lives[/HIGHLIGHT]. And we certainly won't have non-Whites in our society to do our dirty work for us.

It is unrealistic to try to plan things in too much detail now, but a good approach to the problem of who does the dirty work is the sort of thing the Germans did in the 1930s, with every young person going through a period of a couple of years of labor service, regardless of whether he was destined ultimately to be a poet or a factory owner or a farmer or a research scientist. That not only gets the garbage collected and the tomatoes picked, but it pulls the community together and minimizes inter-class hostility.

The Germans had many other excellent ideas which were put into practice in the 1930s: ideas about housing and transportation and industrial management and labor relations and community structure and the raising of children and the training of young people and public health and so on. We can learn much from a study of what they accomplished before we all were tricked into a horribly destructive and unnecessary war which switched the whole world off the track of racial progress and onto the ruinous track of multiculturalism.

All of these aspects of the world we want in the future -- the way in which we raise and educate children, the types of communities we live in (for those who choose to live in communities), the ways in which we do our work -- all of these are very important things, but they must not be planned on the basis of esthetics alone or on the basis of our whims as to what an ideal world should be like. [HIGHLIGHT]Every aspect of our future world is adapted to a central purpose: the purpose of human quality[/HIGHLIGHT] and human progress.

You know, the way in which Mother Nature ensured human progress and human quality in the past was through a high birthrate and a high death rate in a hard and selective environment. Many were born, but only the strongest and brightest lived long enough to have children of their own. In Europe, with its strongly differentiated seasons, the family which did not plan well for the winter and save for the winter did not live until the spring. In the tropics, the grasshopper could afford to fiddle away the summer because it was always summer, but in the North only the industrious ants survived, and the grasshoppers perished.

Unfortunately, we who evolved in Europe and learned how to control our environment outsmarted ourselves by short-circuiting Nature's selective process. Medical science is a wonderful thing, but applied indiscriminately and combined with a welfare system which protects the foolish and the improvident, it has led to a serious decline in human quality in recent centuries. We must reverse this trend, and [HIGHLIGHT]we should design the reversal of the trend into our future world[/HIGHLIGHT]. Certainly, appropriate legislation can be a part of the design. For example, anyone who remains on welfare for as long as a year must be sterilized [Not a bad idea, actually. - Ed.]; [HIGHLIGHT]if a child is born to a mother on welfare, both mother and child must be sterilized; if a congenital defect is corrected by medical intervention, then the intervention must be accompanied by sterilization[/HIGHLIGHT].

It is dangerous, however, to rely entirely on something as artificial and as subject to the whims of fashion as legislation. Legislation served to maintain the racial quality of the ancient Spartans for a while, but it didn't last. People -- even intelligent and moral people -- will choose comfort and ease over a more demanding and selective lifestyle when comfort and ease are available. That's the problem we've always had with material progress: it tends to oppose human progress. Avoiding that fundamental opposition is the biggest challenge we face, and it needs to be addressed not only by enlightened legislation but also by education, from children in kindergarten up through students in the universities, and also by popular entertainment through the mass media.

Beyond legislation and education and propaganda, social institutions and lifestyles should be designed with human quality and human progress in mind. It's not really possible to say now how this may be implemented in detail, but I can give a couple of suggestive examples. Young people should be raised in a competitive environment. They should compete athletically: in gymnastics, in track and field events, in the exercise of outdoor survival skills, in armed and unarmed martial arts -- and at least for girls, in esthetic contests, in contests of beauty and grace -- which more than anything else are dependent on good genes and good health -- and in contests of song and dance and musical performance. And they should compete intellectually, with recognition and scholarships and admission to the best schools given to the best scholars, to the best problem-solvers.

Children raised in such a competitive environment will grow up valuing performance and quality and achievement. When the time comes for them to engender children of their own they will better understand the need for having the best possible children. And the institution of marriage, properly designed, can serve that purpose.

In the first place, children raised competitively and rewarded or recognized according to their achievements, will tend to sort themselves according to quality, so that superior boys are more likely to be in the same schools or the same workplaces as superior girls, and are therefore more likely to marry superior girls.

In the second place, producing children can be encouraged or discouraged according to the quality of the parents. The best parents can be given the greatest social and economic incentives for having large families. And the economy can be structured, the job market can be tailored, so that the brightest and healthiest women have very few career choices and therefore are more likely to choose marriage and motherhood, while attractive careers outside the home are much more available to less gifted women, so that they are less likely to become mothers.

I think that with intelligent planning we can achieve the desired results with a minimum of governmental intrusion into private lives. And, really, this is a very important aspect of the sort of world we want for our people in the future: we want a world where the environment and the shape of the society itself and the lifestyles which naturally flow from that environment and that society are what give us our racial progress, rather than governmental compulsion or regimentation. [HIGHLIGHT]And the reason for this preference is not so much a dislike of governmental compulsion as the fact that governmental compulsion tends to be uncertain and transitory.[/HIGHLIGHT] [Here he seems to be saying that a totalitarian form of government is undesirable and would not be conducive to the society he would like to see established. - Ed.]

I envision a world of White families, of White schools, of White communities: clean and orderly communities, with lots of healthy White children, hiking and camping and learning crafts or folk traditions instead of hanging around shopping malls in baggy shorts or cruising and drinking and throwing beer cans out the window: obedient White kids who say "yes, sir" and "yes, ma'am" to their parents and don't smoke or listen to non-White music or join urban street gangs, because there won't be any urban street gangs. And I envision a world with fewer limits and constraints, [HIGHLIGHT]with a lot more possibilities for the individual to follow his own inclinations[/HIGHLIGHT], a world in which most of the people feel that they can have almost any sort of future they want within the general framework of their responsibilities to their race, if they're willing to take chances and work hard.

I'm afraid that the part about taking chances and working hard won't appeal to all racially conscious White people today: certainly not to those on welfare and probably not to those who have become accustomed to living comfortably even as their world goes over the brink. They might prefer a world without Blacks and Mexicans and Jews and Vietnamese, but they want it to be a world of total comfort and safety, a world in which technology increases the capacity for self-indulgence without limit. They would balk at sacrificing comfort and luxury and personal safety for racial progress.

And I know that most of these people also will balk at the hard methods required to get from here to there. They would like for all of the non-Whites to just go away. They would like for all of the racially mixed couples and their mongrel offspring to just disappear, without any fuss. They would like for all of the Jews to sell out their interests in the media and head for Tel-Aviv and stay there. They would like for all of the White capitalists and liberals and feminists and politicians who have been collaborating with the Jews because they are getting some advantage from it at the expense of their race to wake up one morning and realize the error of their ways and henceforth put the interests of their race first.

But none of that will happen. Without struggle life sinks back into the slime. It always has been only through hardship and struggle and the shedding of blood that life has advanced. Increasing our level of comfort through our technology is not the same as increasing human quality; in fact, throughout history technology has resulted in a lowering of the average human quality in our own race by contravening the process of natural selection -- although our technology also gave us an advantage in our conflicts with other races. What we have done in the past century is foolishly to give away much of that latter advantage while keeping the disadvantage.

Well, our technology need not be used so foolishly in the future, even if it has been so far. It is possible for us to continue reaching for the stars without trying to halt the beneficial effects of AIDS in Africa, for example. We can continue developing new microelectronic gadgetry and at the same time prevent dysgenic breeding among our own people, if we have the will to do so. But when we are sinking comfortably back into the slime we don't have that will; in fact, we don't even like to think about these uncomfortable things, but they are nonetheless true.

We can envision a new White world of strong men and beautiful women and bright children; a greener world of regrown forests and unpolluted air and water; a cleaner world, without Jewish television or non-Whites; a progressive world, in which each successive generation of our people is a little healthier and a little brighter than the last. That new White world can only rise out of hard and bloody struggle, however. It will not be presented to us as a gift, and no one will devise a nice, painless way of getting from here to there. We must have the will to build that world and to overcome every enemy who will try to stop us along the way. Acquiring that will will be the real achievement for us. Once we have the will, we can win the struggle.

In this soft and feminized age it is much easier to continue sinking comfortably back into the slime. So our task for now remains to continue talking to our people about real things, to keep the perceptive minority of our people aware that we are indeed sinking, to help them develop the proper attitudes and the hard, realistic modes of thought conducive to racial survival; and in its own time the comfort will end and the bloodshed will begin, as it always has.

Meanwhile, it doesn't hurt us to daydream occasionally about that cleaner, greener, White world we want to build for our people.

Thanks for being with me again today.