Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
I received a prissy letter from the university administration complaining about our leaflets, and a radio station in Austin, KVRX, interviewed me about the affair. The radio interview gave me an opportunity to counter some misinformation our opponents had been disseminating on the campus, to the effect that our statement that Blacks are much more likely to be HIV carriers than Whites is false. The anti-racists wanted the public to believe that there's no difference between Whites and Blacks where AIDS is concerned. I mean, we're all equal, right? It's embarrassing to them to have people talking about the much higher HIV infection rate of Blacks. That smacks of racism!
The part of our message that caused the most distress to the Politically Correct folks at the University of Texas was our warning to White women to stay away from Black males. That upset the Jews and Marxists, of course, because they have been pushing hard to encourage interracial sex. That's the ultimate cure for the race problem, they claim. When everyone is a mulatto, when we've all become the same shade of brown a few generations hence, then there will be no more racism, and we all will live together happily forever after. Well, of course, we expect that sort of poisonous propaganda from the Jews and the Marxists. What is really disappointing is the degree to which this poisonous attitude has taken hold in the university community generally, and also among the general public.
And you know, it's worse than simply having been taught incorrect information about racial differences. And it's worse than simply a change of opinion about racial matters. It's a general softening, a general feminization of public attitudes. American universities not only have been dumbed down in the name of equality; they also have been wimped down. They have been demasculinized.
I was an undergraduate at a Texas university too -- Rice University -- 45 years ago. Even then, in the 1950s, I had the feeling that the university community was not entirely in touch with reality. We were 20-year-olds with the attitudes of children. Five hundred years before -- even a century before -- 20-year-old males were men, with men's responsibilities. In the past, 20-year-old women also had responsibilities, including a husband, a home, and three or four children. About the most serious concern I and my fellow undergraduates had in the 1950s was keeping our grades up enough to avoid being drafted for the Korean War. Still, we were a bit more mature than today's crop of undergraduates.
You know, there are some types of behavior which stem from fashion, and some types of behavior which stem from character. An example of fashion-based behavior might be the prevalence of cigarette smoking, for example, or the type of intoxicants used. When I was an undergraduate, smoking was considered a low-class thing. It had been more prevalent in my military school, where the students came from a wider range of social backgrounds. At the university, however, there was a blue-collar stigma associated with smoking. A few students smoked, mainly because they had gotten hooked on it and weren't strong enough to quit, but it definitely wasn't fashionable. Girls, in particular, didn't smoke.
Probably a more striking change in behavior is drug usage. Fifty years ago the only drug acceptable among students was alcohol. Perhaps in some of the very Jewish schools in the Northeast other drugs were fashionable, but certainly not in Texas. Whisky and gin and beer, yes; marijuana and cocaine and heroin, no. We knew about these drugs, but anyone who used them would have been a social outcast on campus. They weren't fashionable.
Weakness and failure also weren't fashionable. Success was. When the semester grades for students were posted, they had a distinct social significance. Getting A's was no guarantee of popularity, of course, but getting Ds and Fs was a guarantee that one would be considered a loser, and no one wanted to be seen in the company of a loser. Those were the days before football scholarships -- and certainly before basketball scholarships -- at least, at my school. Success still is fashionable everywhere, I believe, but my impression is that losers and weaklings are protected much more from the consequences of their weakness than before. They are shielded from the social stigma of failure. Excuses are made for them. They are tolerated more than before. I think that may involve more than fashion, however. There may be a change in character involved.
That's certainly the case with race, although it's difficult to separate all of the factors involved. Fifty years ago if it had been discovered that a White female student was involved in a sexual relationship with a Black, that would have been the end of her. It would have been as if she had been discovered having sex with a dog: worse, actually. And it wasn't just a matter of Blacks being low-status people. There were wealthy Black entertainers in those days, but wealth would not have been a mitigating circumstance.
There are types of behavior that we abhor instinctively: types of behavior that nearly everyone abhors in a natural environment and that at some level those who have good instincts -- or one might say, good character -- continue to abhor even in an unnatural environment where natural reactions to abhorrent behavior are repressed. Homosexuality is one type of naturally abhorrent behavior. Racial mixing is another. These are not matters of fashion. Men who behave like women always have been despised. Women who mate outside their race always have been despised. Men who do not find such behavior abhorrent aren't simply responding to changes in fashion; they are revealing flaws in their character. A community or a society that proclaims such behavior acceptable is a weak and morally flawed community, a weak and degenerate society.
You know, I'm not a social scientist, and I have neither the time nor the resources to do an academic study of the correlation between various changes we can see in our society and in the behavior of our people -- but I'm sure that there is, in fact, a strong correlation among three things: first, the increased isolation and shielding of our young men from the natural world; second, the lack of manliness; the lack of self-confidence, maturity, and responsibility; the lack of strength, daring, and independence in young men today; and third, the willingness to accept every sort of perverse, unnatural, and destructive behavior as "normal." It's as if an excessively sheltered life-style leads first to an atrophy of manly virtue and moral strength, the way lack of exercise leads to muscular atrophy, and then it leads to a shutdown of the normal powers of discrimination, almost in the way HIV causes a shutdown of the human immune system. One might almost say that while AIDS is gaining ground rapidly in the Black population, the moral equivalent of AIDS is ravaging the White population.
Although this moral disease has infected our whole society, it seems to me that it has done more damage in our universities than anywhere else. Perhaps that's because university students are somewhat more shielded from the real world than most of the rest of the population -- or perhaps it's because the purveyors of the disease have focused their infectious efforts on the universities. My feeling is that despite the postponement of the acceptance of responsibilities which is inherent in being a university student, university life need not be morally debilitating.
Here's one small example: In many German universities, especially before the disaster of 1945, dueling clubs were an important part of student life. They not only served to maintain consciousness of the concept of manly honor, but they taught young men to be willing to expose themselves to physical danger and to undergo pain. I'm not specifically advocating dueling in American universities. There are far more serious problems in the universities to be dealt with first. I'm just saying that I believe that our universities don't have to be the morally debilitating institutions that they are today. They don't have to be the sort of place where Political Correctness is more strongly entrenched and more rigidly enforced than anywhere else in our society, and where the average student believes that toleration for everything that is perverse and destructive is a virtue.
You know, the principal reason we need to be concerned about our universities is that the leaders in nearly every sector of our society pass through them and are influenced by them. When I speak with various people who are in our universities today or who have recently graduated, I get different impressions of the problem. Some tell me about the strong influence of the homosexuals on the campuses, about how tightly organized and powerful and militant they are. And of course, this is a striking change for me. When I was a student there was no homosexual problem at all. Probably there were a few homosexuals here and there, but they certainly weren't noticeable, and no one knew who they were. And it wasn't that they were repressed or persecuted. There simply was no homosexual problem. They weren't an issue.
Other people focus on the feminists, and their influence on the campuses also is a striking change. That was another problem we didn't have when I was a student. We had individual women who were problems, of course, just as we had individual men who were problems, but we had no organized feminist nuttiness and perversity of the sort which is such an unhealthy influence today. Then there are the Marxists. The collapse of organized Marxism in the outside world seems to have gone unnoticed on our university campuses, which remain the one venue in America outside of New York City where this particular malignancy still finds its devoted adherents. When I was a student we had a few -- very few -- individual Marxists on the campus, but certainly no one took them seriously enough even to punch them in the nose. I guess we should have punched them in the nose and discouraged that particular bunch of freaks before they had a chance to do any more damage.
When I look at the really profound changes which have taken place in our universities during the past 50 years, I try not to become obsessed with any one change. I try to understand the whole pattern of changes. I look for common elements, and I always look for causes. What -- or who -- is behind the changes?
I see three really big changes, three patterns of change, and they are interrelated. One change is the imposition of Political Correctness. Every university in America now has what amounts to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth, which determines what ideas, what thoughts, what expressions -- even what facts -- are permissible. Give any hint that you have an impermissible idea in your head, and the Thought Police are all over you, and you're in real trouble. That's why the folks at the University of Texas had such a hard time coping with the fact that HIV infection is so much more prevalent among Blacks than among Whites: eight times as prevalent overall, and 14 times as prevalent if one considers just heterosexual males, which, of course, is what counts if one is warning White women about sexual contact with Blacks. That is a Politically Incorrect fact. And of course, suggesting that interracial sex is not a good thing, regardless of the AIDS danger, also is Politically Incorrect.
When I was a student people were free to think thoughts which some people considered offensive or to say things which offended other people. If you did that often enough you might become very unpopular, but that was your business. Nobody told you that you couldn't do it.
At the same time the mental straitjacket of Political Correctness was being imposed on our universities another imposition was being made that might at fist glance seem contradictory but which really was just a different face of Political Correctness, and that was the notion that tolerance is a wonderful thing. The reason this notion isn't contrary to Political Correctness is that it isn't tolerance in the usual sense of the word. Politically Correct "tolerance" is tolerance of all of those things that would be intolerable in a healthy society and intolerance of those things that used to be accepted by normal, healthy people. "Tolerance" today means accepting homosexuals and feminists and Jews and Marxists without criticism or question. It means smiling whenever you see an interracial couple. It means tolerating the sort of behavior engaged in by people like Bill Clinton, when he used to send out the Arkansas State Police to round up women for him. It means tolerating Janet Reno's burning down a church packed with women and children in Waco, Texas. It mean's tolerating Madeleine Albright's murderous assault on any country in Europe or the Middle East which refuses to obey the New World Order crowd. But it most certainly does not mean tolerating anything that smacks of White racism or sexism or homophobia -- or more generally, anything that is Politically Incorrect. The new "tolerance" is just the smiley face of Political Correctness: the warm, fuzzy, friendly side of Political Correctness.
The second really big pattern of change at our universities also has taken place throughout our whole society, but it has hit the universities especially hard, and that is "diversity." When I was a student, not only an undergraduate in Texas but also a graduate student in Colorado and in California, the universities were White. The only really noticeable minority anywhere was the Jewish minority. At Caltech there was a tiny sprinkling of Asians. I can't remember any Blacks. I remember just a handful of Blacks at the University of Colorado. And it wasn't because there was any Jim Crow law keeping non-Whites out. Nor was it a financial barrier. I never paid tuition. I was a poor boy. I either had scholarships or I worked as a graduate assistant. The great advantage in those days was that there was a real sense of community. The universities were European institutions, White institutions, and as students we were part of them.
Today it's quite different. Some of the graduate schools are packed so full of Asians and other non-Whites that there's literally no room for White students. There's certainly no sense that one is part of a European institution. What the diversity-mongers have done is de-Aryanize our universities. I believe that the aim was not so much to get more Blacks and Filipinos and Chinamen and Pakistanis into our universities for the sake of diversity as it was to dilute the White presence to the point that we no longer would feel a sense of proprietorship: we would no longer feel that they were our universities and therefore wouldn't resist the changes being made. That's certainly the way it has turned out.
And it's not just the non-Whites who have added to the cultural dissonance at our universities. It is all of the newly empowered minions of Political Correctness: the feminists, the queers, and so on. And now I'll really stick my neck out and generalize from what has been happening in our universities to what has been happening in our whole society. The same people who have been busy de-Aryanizing our universities have been de-Aryanizing America. The process has gone a bit further in the universities, but all of America is headed for the same place, and it's not a very nice place.
Why are we going there? Well, that's because of the third change -- which is something I've already mentioned: namely, the wimping down of our people and the shutting off of their normal powers of discrimination. Can you imagine the people of any normal, healthy nation letting themselves be dispossessed the way we're being dispossessed? Can you imagine any healthy, White country permitting fast-breeding mestizos to come pouring across their southern border at the rate of more than a million a year without raising a hand to stop them? Can you imagine any morally healthy nation tolerating the sort of behavior we've seen in Washington during the Clinton era? How long has it been since we've assassinated a single politician? My God, we are sick unto death!
In my view, a White nation that permits its women to run with its former Black slaves not only is sick, but doesn't deserve to live. An Aryan nation that permits Jews to teach its young people and that permits Jews to control its entertainment media and to use those media to promote miscegenation and every other form of self-destructive degeneracy not only is sick, but is very close to death.
Believe me, if White Americans weren't already ravaged by moral AIDS and their government behaved the way the Clinton government has been behaving, the rotting corpses of politicians, judges, and bureaucrats would be swinging from every lamppost and power pole in Washington. The headquarters buildings of every major media corporation in New York and Hollywood would be burned-out ruins, and the blood of the people who had worked in those buildings would be running ankle deep in the gutters around the ruins. Every inner city and every non-White neighborhood in America would be blocked off while armed teams went door to door and made the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo look like a Sunday school picnic by comparison. That's what would happen if we were a healthy, moral nation, instead of a terminally ill nation brought down by the purveyors of moral AIDS.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page