Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page

Free Speech - December 1999 - Volume V, Number 12

Tribal Thinking

by Dr. William Pierce

Quite often I make fun of liberals on this program: you know, feminists, egalitarians, New World Order enthusiasts, the kind of people who identify with Bill Clinton as a fellow child of the '60s and who admire Hillary as the very model of the modern American woman; people who have filters on their minds to keep out Politically Incorrect facts and ideas; people who refuse even to look at the world except through Politically Correct goggles.

I mean, it's pretty hard to take such people seriously. Hypocrisy makes such a wonderful target, and practically everything a liberal says or does is glaringly hypocritical. Liberals think it is terrible that Serbs were rough on Albanians when the Serbs had the upper hand in Serbia's Kosovo province, but they don't want to hear about what the Albanians do to the Serbs when the tables are turned. They claim to be for peace and love and brotherhood, but they are the first to call for cruise missiles and smart bombs when someone who doesn't share their peculiar mind-set gets in the way of one of their pet projects. They say that they are against war on principle, that negotiation and arbitration and compromise are the ways to handle international disputes, but they were solidly in favor of the most terrible and destructive war in history, and they ridiculed as "appeasers" and "isolationists" those who made serious efforts to prevent that war through negotiation, arbitration, and compromise.

Liberals' hearts bleed at the thought of pickaninnies going hungry in Africa, but it bothers them not at all that the policy of their favorite President has caused the deaths of nearly a million children in Iraq. When South Africa had a White government just a few years ago, liberals were constantly in an uproar, demonstrating, agitating, lobbying, writing editorials, screaming for new sanctions, and flying into a rage at the news of every new incident of perceived "racial injustice" or White mistreatment of Blacks. Then there was an instant of delirious joy and triumph among liberals when the White South Africans foolishly permitted themselves to be persuaded to vote for Black rule in their country. Since then, however, as South Africa has descended into chaos and ruin under Black rule, liberals have completely lost interest in what used to be their favorite preoccupation. They don't want to hear anything about South Africa these days. If you press them on the matter they will tell you smugly that the epidemic of murder of White South African farm families by Black gangs and the rape of White South African women by Blacks is just retribution for years of apartheid. But the fact that ordinary Blacks in South Africa, whom White liberals in America used to cherish and sympathize with -- the fact that ordinary Blacks are much more likely to be crime victims now than they were under White rule doesn't interest liberals in the least.

For years liberals have deplored violence by skinhead gangs in Europe and America, especially since that violence often is directed against non-Whites. And they complain about White football hooligans, who are notorious for starting riots after soccer matches in Britain. But when seven Black thugs were expelled from a high school in Illinois just a few days ago after starting a Black riot at a football game in which a number of White students were beaten severely, liberals began marching with the Reverend Jesse Jackson to pressure school officials into rescinding the expulsions.

In America police brutality always has been a favorite source of liberal indignation. They love the thrill of outrage that they feel when they remember how the police used fire hoses to wet down disorderly demonstrators in Selma, Alabama, or thumped so-called "freedom riders" with their nightsticks. They still work up a pretty good head of steam over those things after more than 30 years. One of the liberals' folk heroes today is Black cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, formerly known as Wesley Cook. In December 1981 Abu-Jamal walked up behind a young White policeman, Danny Faulkner, in Philadelphia and shot him in the back. When the White policeman fell to the pavement, the Black killer stood over his body and pumped four more bullets into him.

Abu-Jamal was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in 1982 on the basis of testimony from eye witnesses. There has hardly been a more clear-cut case of cold-blooded, first-degree murder adjudicated in an American court. Well, that conviction was more than 17 years ago, but Mumia Abu-Jamal has so far avoided being punished because White liberals have decided that he is a martyr in the struggle for justice for Blacks. Prominent media liberals, including a number of Hollywood stars such as Paul Newman and Susan Sarandon, have demonstrated for his pardon and release. Mention murdered White police officer Danny Faulkner to them, and you'll get nothing but a sneer.

But don't jump to the conclusion that just because there is a conflict somewhere between the police and members of a despised minority that liberals always will be on the side of the despised minority. In Israel, for example, police always have routinely tortured Palestinian prisoners in order to extract information from them. A number of Palestinian prisoners have died from torture at the hands of Jewish authorities. When the question came up in Israel just a few weeks ago of whether or not the practice of torture by police during the interrogation of arrested Palestinians should be continued in the light of international disapproval, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak came down on the "yea" side, there was even discussion of the issue in some American publications. But that's all very ho-hum stuff to liberals.

People other than me have pointed out this selective indignation and selective compassion which is a distinguishing characteristic of liberals. I sometimes have characterized liberals as trendy airheads because of their inconsistencies. But I don't really mean to imply that I think liberals are stupider than the bulk of the American population. The very fact that they are utterly inconsistent, that they do not base the positions they take on principle, but nevertheless are able to march in ideological lockstep with one another means that they have to be fairly alert always to know what the Politically Correct position on every issue is at any given moment. They have to know instantly whether a particular incident is one they should be outraged about or should ignore. They have to know whether or not a specific individual victim of injustice or a specific group of victims deserves their compassion or their scorn. That requires a certain degree of mental agility. Liberals certainly are crooked, but not necessarily stupid.

No, when it comes to stupidity I believe that conservatives take the prize. Let me read you a letter I received this week from a conservative listener. I'm reading the whole letter from a true-blue conservative, a real believer in the Protestant work ethic. He writes:

"I am a single, white, non-Jewish male -- a Lutheran -- who resides in New York City. As you've mentioned, Jews do control a decent portion of this country's media as well as permeate most of corporate America. But I believe this was done through hard work and promotion of education among their people. Instead of slighting them at every opportunity, why not highlight their achievements as a positive motivation for us Gentiles to excel. Otherwise you come off sounding like a whiny hillbilly who is simply jealous. America is a free country. If Jews have excelled faster than the rest of us, hats off to them." -- J. Koepp.

You know, living in New York City does something to people, and I might attribute Mr. Koepp's letter to the morally debilitating effect of his environment, except that I've received letters from conservatives in other parts of the country that are just as stupid. Well, anyway, Mr. Koepp's letter made me think about conservatives and liberals: about their differences from each other and also about their similarities.

How are liberals and conservatives different from one another? I believe that their most fundamental difference is that liberals enjoy destroying things, smashing up existing structures and institutions, while conservatives are much more inclined to hang onto what already exists: not only to hang on, but to support it, so long as it has an aura of authority, whether that makes sense or not. Conservatives respect authority and crave respectability for themselves; liberals respect nothing and desire above all else to be fashionable.

The conservative and the liberal are similar in that neither is a systematic thinker -- at least, not with regard to the ideas and policies that define his conservative or liberal nature. He does not derive his ideas on specific matters from general principles, but rather from attitudes or psychological tendencies.

Mr. Koepp believes that we should take our hats off to the rich and powerful Jews who control Hollywood, New York, and Washington. Why? Because, according to his letter, they have worked hard for their wealth and power. Should we also take off our hats to Mafia bosses who have worked hard and taken big chances to become capos? Mr. Koepp probably would say "no." Why not? Well, Mr. Koepp might not be able to tell you, but in line with the conservative's way of thinking it's because the Mafia bosses aren't respectable, while the Jewish media bosses, using their control of the media for the purpose, have managed to wrap themselves in a cloak of respectability. The media bosses are respectable in the eyes of the conservative, and the Mafia bosses aren't, despite the fact that the media bosses do infinitely more damage to our society than the Mafia does. Probably the conservative would agree that the Negroid anti-culture promoted among our young people by Sumner Redstone's MTV is not a good thing. But Mr. Redstone is a very rich and very powerful Jew: a respectable Jew, by Mr. Koepp's standards. Well, anyway, as I said, conservatives are not systematic thinkers. Nor are liberals.

I'll tell you who the systematic thinkers are: the Jews. The Jews not only think systematically, they think tribally. Jews aren't afraid of hard work when it is necessary, but they don't really work harder than conservatives or liberals -- at least, it's not just hard work and education that are responsible for their wealth and power; it's their systematic approach to things, their tribal approach. That is the secret of their success. They're not distracted by things such as conservatism or liberalism. They know what they want, and they go after it in a rational way.

Back during the early part of this century conservatives used to scratch their heads and try to figure out whether Jews were basically capitalists or communists. Jews had become very successful as capitalists in America and had amassed huge fortunes. But in Europe the Jews were leading the communist movement, and Jewish capitalists in America were giving them financial aid. The conservatives couldn't figure it out. It was too much of a puzzle for them. As I said earlier, conservatives are not very bright.

The answer to the puzzle, of course, is that Jews are basically neither communists nor capitalists. But they also are both when it suits their purpose. I'll repeat to you an anecdote told by Lazar Kaganovich, the bloodiest and most powerful of the Jewish Bolsheviks during the height of communist power in the Soviet Union. Kaganovich was known as the Butcher of Ukraine and the Wolf of the Kremlin and was personally responsible for the murder of millions of Ukrainian and Russian farmers and workers. In 1957 Nikita Khruschev himself publicly accused Kaganovich of murdering 20 million Russians.

Kaganovich told the anecdote to his American nephew, Stuart Kahan, who wrote the official biography of his uncle, which was published in this country in 1987 by William Morrow and Company. Kaganovich's own uncle, Levick, had told the young Kaganovich as a boy in Ukraine the basic rule by which he expected the young Jew to guide his life: "Whatever is good for the Jews. Follow only that line of reasoning." Actually, Kaganovich mentions several other occasions on which his Uncle Levick impressed him with the same rule of conduct, the same rule to guide his thinking, during the time when the young Jew, who was a yeshiva boy, was attending his first communist meetings in the synagogue in Kiev.

The interesting thing about that in this connection is that wealthy capitalist Jews have written about the same rule being pounded into their own heads by their elders when they were boys: "Always base your decisions on what is good for the Jews. Always choose the policy which benefits the Jews. That must be the rule which guides your life, my boy." That is tribal thinking. And it is successful thinking. And neither conservatives nor liberals understand it.

In the 1970s, after it was apparent to astute observers that communism was bankrupt and would not last much longer in eastern Europe, thousands of Jewish intellectuals in America who formerly had supported Marxism, began changing their tune and announcing that henceforth they would be conservatives. Today they are called "neoconservatives" or "neocons." And Gentile liberals felt betrayed. They believed that their Jewish fellow travelers had let them down, had betrayed the cause of liberalism. They didn't understand that the Jews had no more been genuine Marxists or genuine liberals in the past than the neocons are genuine conservatives today. They were just doing what was good for the Jews, paying lip service to whatever ideology was best for the Jews at the time, and as the times changed, so did the ideology.

Today, despite the abandonment of Marxism and the large number of Jewish neocons around, Jews generally are still regarded as "liberals" by most people. That's because, regardless of whether they support Al Gore or Bill Bradley or George Bush, Jr., for President -- regardless of their economic policies or their party affiliation -- they virtually all are for gun control, for open borders, for multiculturalism and more "diversity," for racial mixing, for permitting homosexuals to be Boy Scout leaders, and so on. But the essential point, which both conservatives and liberals fail to understand, is that the Jews don't base their policies on any inherently "liberal" tendency. They base their policies on what's good for the Jews. And that also means, in nearly every case, on what's bad for the Gentiles, on what weakens the Gentiles, on what makes easier prey of the Gentiles. Tribal thinking.

We live in a rapidly shrinking world, with rapidly increasing competition for limited resources. Everywhere, both in America and in Europe, the land that used to be exclusively ours is being overrun by non-Whites. We already are a minority in California, and we're headed toward becoming a minority everywhere else in a hurry. We are losing our neighborhoods, our cities, our public schools, our workplaces to non-Whites. Really, that's an understatement. We've already lost many of our cities and many of our public schools, and the suburbs and the private schools are going fast. Racial intermarriage is skyrocketing. Our young women, thoughtlessly trying to be fashionable and imitating what they see on television, are running with Blacks and other non-Whites in increasing numbers.

We have before us the example of South Africa. That is, those of us who pay attention to what is actually happening in the world and don't depend entirely on Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, and Peter Jennings, have that example before us of a formerly White civilization going down to ruin in just a few short years after the Whites there relaxed their grip. We have that example before us, and we can see what is happening all around us in America, just as we can see on our television screens where the Jews are pushing us. And the conservatives among us tell us that we should take our hats off to the hard-working folks in Hollywood, New York, and Washington who are orchestrating this wonderful Jonestown, America, while the liberals are elbowing each other aside in their eagerness to be first in line at the Kool Aid dispenser.

It's about time for those of us still capable of thinking tribally to begin doing so. It's about time for those of us who understand what it means to be White, to be European, to be Aryan in a darkening world, and who understand what it used to mean -- those of us who treasure our heritage, who honor the sacrifices and achievements of our forefathers and appreciate the civilization they created for us -- those of us who feel a sense of responsibility to the future and are determined that our people shall inherit the future, not the mongrel offspring of the rappers and jivers we see on our television screens, but our people -- it's about time for us to begin thinking and planning and acting systematically in a manner aimed at our racial survival.

It's time to stop being spectators, to stop listening to the hypocritical cant of the liberals and the mindless ramblings of the conservatives. It's time to base everything -- everything -- on the proposition that we must survive, our people must survive. If a policy strengthens our people, if it increases the survivability of our people, it is a good policy. If it weakens us or puts us at a disadvantage in the struggle for survival, it is a bad policy. That's all that matters. That's all that we should consider. Racial survival, racial victory in the struggle for life and dominance, must be the goal of every plan, of every policy, of every thought and action. Tribal thinking.

We used to understand that, back before television. Everyone understood it who survived. The Jews still understand it. We'd better learn it again -- soon.

© 1999 National Vanguard Books · Box 330 · Hillsboro ·WV 24946 · USA

A cassette recording of this broadcast is available for $12.95 including postage from:
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946

Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page