Your organization is being talked about, and I thought you might like
to know. I want to make it clear that I am not associated with the
following.
If you would rather listen to the following message, rather than read
it, down load it at:
http://www.natall.com/radio/ts/102597.WAV
American Dissident Voices Broadcast of October 25, 1997
PROMISE KEEPERS
by Dr. William Pierce
If you watch the news on television regularly, I'm sure you saw the huge
get-together of so-called "Promise Keepers" in Washington a couple of
weeks ago: hundreds of thousands of mostly White men hugging each other,
holding hands, and rocking back and forth with their eyes closed. Some
of them were shaking and crying or singing and clapping their hands much
like one used to see in an old-fashioned revival tent. I was fascinated
by the phenomenon -- and by the reaction of various elements to it.
The most interesting reaction was that of the feminist organizations.
They clearly were worried. They did not like the idea of a large number
of White males gathered together for any purpose. Some of the feminist
commissars made cautious statements to the media. They expressed their
concern about the Political Incorrectness of men getting together as
men. They saw this as a very dangerous development. What if the all-male
Promise Keepers, said to have nearly three million members, decided to
use their numbers politically? Suppose they decided to back candidates
for public office or to express their collective opinion on some matter
of public policy. The very thought gave them the cold shivers.
On such matters as abortion for convenience the Promise Keepers, as a
fundamentalist Christian group, do not share the views of the feminists.
And the Promise Keepers disagree with the feminists on such matters as
lesbianism and homosexuality in general -- although, a lot of male
homosexuals must have been looking with considerable interest at all of
those men hugging each other.
The concerns of the feminists went beyond specific issues such as
abortion for convenience and lesbianism, however. They were profoundly
disturbed by the fact that the Promise Keepers were an unapproved group.
It's fine for Blacks to organize, or Jews, or homosexuals, or women, but
heterosexual White men are the enemy. They're not supposed to organize.
They're supposed to be kept disorganized, confused, and impotent, so
that they can't get in the way of "progress" and the march toward a New
World Order.
But, the more I learn about the Promise Keepers, the more I'm inclined
to believe that they really won't be much of an obstacle on the road to
a New World Order. On the truly essential issues, they are already
there. Consider race, for example. The founder of the group, Bill
McCartney, used to be a football coach at the University of Colorado,
where I got my doctorate, and his daughter used to love the Black
players on his team. He seems to be proud of the fact that he now has
two non-White grandchildren sired by different members of the team.
Although there are very few Blacks among the rank and file membership of
Promise Keepers, it's not from lack of trying on McCartney's part. He
has an affirmative action hiring program for his organization which has
resulted in his office staff being fully a third non-White. He has
vigorously recruited non-White directors for the governing board of the
group. At Promise Keepers rallies held anywhere near the Mexican border,
he literally buses in thousands of mestizos to add "racial diversity" to
the audiences. He talks about the meaninglessness of borders. His
meetings often feature Jewish, Black and other non-White preachers, and
he uses posters and banners picturing Whites and non-Whites together.
And he always plays the White racial guilt card. At a meeting of 30,000
men, nearly all of them White, held in the New Orleans Superdome last
summer, McCartney complained about the lack of non-Whites in the
audience. "Where are the men of color?" he asked. And then he continued,
"I want to tell you why they're not here. There's a spirit of White
racial superiority that exists in this nation. It's an insensitivity to
the pain of men of color. We have not been washing their feet. We have
not been feeling their pain." Whenever the opportunity presents itself,
McCartney will get down on his knees, pull off the shoes of any Black
within reach, and give a personal demonstration of foot-washing.
Now, it's really not important whether one marches toward the New World
Order with a copy of the Bible in one's hand, or a copy of Das Kapital.
It doesn't matter whether one's admission pass is signed by Jesus or by
Karl Marx. I really hate to say bad things about anyone that the
feminists don't like, but the fact of the matter is that the Promise
Keepers, on the basis of their racial doctrines alone, are a dangerous
and destructive group. Perhaps patriots should be grateful that the
feminists have a new group to worry about and to contend with on social
issues, but patriots should not let themselves be fooled into believing
that Promise Keepers can be our allies, just because they are saying the
right things on some issues: just because they condemn homosexuality,
for example, or because they deplore the decay of the institution of
family. They are so dead wrong on race that nothing else they say or do
can possibly compensate for this.
Racial egalitarianism and the encouragement of racial mixing are not the
only problems with the Promise Keepers. There's something basically
unhealthy about these people -- I might almost say unmanly. When I watch
a group of them doing their thing -- holding hands and rocking back and
forth with their eyes closed and praying aloud -- I become distinctly
uncomfortable. I mean, these are grown men. Why are they doing this? Is
this religion? Or is it some sort of feel-good group therapy?
The whole thrust of the Promise Keepers' doctrine bothers me, with its
emphasis on guilt, confession, self-flagellation, submission, and the
washing of Black feet. I realize that there are different currents in
Christianity which have come to the fore at different periods in
history, but there's something distinctly un-White, something
essentially Levantine rather than European, about the current in the
Promise Keepers' doctrine. I really don't like this soft and weepy
"forgive me, oh Lord, for I am a sinner" approach to the problems we are
facing as a race when what's needed is the vigorous use of a whip to
drive the destructive and unhealthy elements out of our society.
Even if we had to deal only with the problem of trying to repair the
damage which has been done to the American family and oppose the
feminists who are largely responsible for that damage, and even if we
had to deal with this problem in a Christian manner, we wouldn't need
the Mother Theresa approach of the Promise Keepers; we would need
instead a much firmer approach. It is good to remember the story of the
13th-century papal legate. He was asked by a military leader attacking a
city in southern France -- a city which was a stronghold of heretics --
how his soldiers could tell who was a heretic and who was not. The papal
legate answered simply: "Kill them all. God will sort them out." I don't
believe that we need to take a religious approach at all to fixing
America. However, when dealing with radical feminists, I do believe that
the proper approach is closer to that of the papal legate in
13th-century France than it is to that of Mother Theresa. They are an
incurably sick bunch.
There's something else that bothers me about the Promise Keepers. It's
the style as well the content of their doctrine. Let me go back to what
I mentioned a minute ago about their penchant for holding hands and
weeping and confessing their sins to strangers in big meetings. These
things are not just incidental or peripheral. The men in Promise Keepers
are told that this sort of behavior is not only acceptable, but it is
necessary. It is a constant at their meetings. It is the central
feature.
What this reminds me of more than anything else is so-called
"sensitivity training," a brainwashing technique that is very effective
with a certain type of person with a weak sense of personal identity, a
low level of self-esteem, and a strong need for group acceptance. It is
a technique that can be used very effectively to change many people's
ideas and behavior. The Communists mastered the technique back in the
1920s and 1930s and used it on a huge scale. The public confessions they
obtained with the method are notorious. Today the U.S. government and
many businesses, use the technique to force White people to change their
attitudes on racial matters. Cults also use the technique to control the
thinking of their members. It makes zombies of people: the right sort of
people, that is; people who are susceptible to the technique.
I am alarmed by the fact that there are so many of our people who are
susceptible. This is a time which demands strength from us. The problems
we are facing require every bit of manliness we can muster. Among the
attributes of a man are a sense of personal dignity, of self-worth, and
of self-reliance. This is true of a White man whether he is a Christian
or not. The sort of self-abasement we see at every meeting of Promise
Keepers is contrary to our concept of manhood. It is much more in accord
with the feminists' idea of what a man should be like: namely, weepy and
submissive.
We live in an unnatural environment these days which is confusing to our
instincts, whether we are men or women. Most boys, in particular, are
not raised in a way which naturally strengthens and develops the manly
virtues. Boys raised on a farm a century ago were given work to do from
the time they could walk. Everyone was expected to pull his own weight.
This helped a boy develop a sense of self-worth and self-reliance. And
boys learned from a close working association with their fathers what
was expected of a man. This association all too often is absent today
and in nearly all cases is greatly attenuated in comparison to what it
used to be. In very few families today does a boy have an opportunity to
do any meaningful work with his father.
On top of this is a Politically Correct educational system which makes
things much worse by de-emphasizing everything which used to contribute
to a boy's sense of identity and to help him acquire a strong set of
standards and values. Take a close look sometime at the old McGuffey's
Readers, which were used 100 years ago to teach young Americans in our
elementary schools how to read and to build their vocabulary and sense
of style while strengthening their understanding of grammar and the
rules of spelling. Nearly every story also taught a moral lesson,
beginning with very simple lessons, of the sort found in Aesop's fables,
and progressing to stories which illustrated and praised the virtues of
courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty,
and industry. Personal dignity too. Many of the stories were based on
historical incidents, ranging from Roman times to the American
Revolution. By the time a boy had progressed through the whole series of
readers and finished elementary school he had been exposed to dozens of
historical role models and had developed a strong sense of identity:
that is, a historical sense of who his people were and what they were
like, what they had gone through during their history, what their values
were, and what they believed. And he had acquired at least a rudimentary
concept of personal honor. He might still grow up to be a crook or a
bum, but at least he knew the difference between honorable and
dishonorable behavior.
Now, of course, to modern educators the McGuffey Readers are intolerably
racist and sexist. The values they teach are European values, White
values, and that just won't do in a multiracial society. The concept of
proper behavior is one thing for Europeans and something quite different
for Africans or Chinese. The same objection is raised against the
historical lessons. Why should boys learn from anecdotes about Romans or
Germans instead of Zulus and Ubangis? And to teach boys bravery and
chivalry really gets the feminists steamed. So the McGuffey Readers and
everything like them were tossed out long ago, our schools have become
what they are today, and it is no wonder that a great many of the young
men who pass through them are confused and disoriented -- not to mention
the young women.
Then, there is the effect of the modern entertainment media, primarily
television.
I won't even get into that today. Let it suffice to say that many of the
problems in our society the Promise Keepers talk about are real
problems, and they need to be dealt with. But the men who are attracted
to the Promise Keepers also have problems -- personal problems -- and
those problems need to be dealt with too, but not in the way the Promise
Keepers or any of the other cults deal with the personal problems of the
people they attract. These personal problems, these personal weaknesses,
which have arisen because of flaws which have developed in our society
-- in our life-styles, our educational system, our mass media -- are
exploited by the cults to win converts. The cults depend on these
weaknesses, and they are much more interested in taking advantage of
them than in curing them.
Which is to say that when the Promise Keepers encounter a man whose
sense of manly propriety and manly dignity has gone so awry that he is
attracted, rather than repulsed, by the spectacle of other men hugging
each other in public, confessing their imagined "sins" to each other,
and looking for Black men whose feet they can wash, the Promise Keepers
encourage him to join and do these things himself, rather than trying to
help him get a grip on himself and behave the way a man should behave.
This is a fundamental flaw that all cults have. They attract people who
have serious personal problems, and in order to do that they encourage
and exacerbate these problems rather than trying to cure them. Some
cults become quite large and quite strong by this strategy and are even
able to achieve certain goals using their flawed members. But I find
this whole cult strategy extremely distasteful.
One of the goals of the Promise Keepers is strengthening the American
family, but I'm dubious about their prospects for success in the long
run. It becomes a case of the blind trying to lead the blind. It becomes
a case of the more seriously flawed men in our society setting out to
cure the problems which contributed to their flaws. If we are to cure
what's wrong with the American family, then we need men with a strong
sense of identity and self-worth, men who know who they are and what
they want, to tackle the problem. We need self-reliant men, not men who
are attracted to a cult like a moth to a candle.
One of the unfortunate things about life in America at the end of the
20th century is that we'll be seeing a lot more of cults in the next few
years, cults of all sorts. As American society continues to unravel,
more and more men and women will be grasping for straws, grasping for
something to hold to, grasping for something which promises to give them
the sense of security and certainty which they so desperately need.
But the solution to our problems, the cure for our ailing society, will
not come from these cults: certainly not from a cult which encourages
White men to wash the feet of Black men and whose leader boasts of his
mulatto grandchildren. We can only have a healthy society again by
solving the problems of life-style and education and mass media that I
have mentioned. We can only have a healthy society and healthy families
again when we are able to return to the sort of life-style which allows
children to work together with their parents and learn from their
parents -- boys from their fathers and girls from their mothers -- and
when our educational system has shaken off the last trace of Political
Correctness, and our entertainment media, as well as our news media,
have been taken out of the hands of Jews.
This does not mean that we must return to the past and all grow up on
farms like we did a century ago and all read McGuffey's Readers in
school. But it does mean that we must restore to our lives the essential
elements from our past which allowed us to be healthy then, and we must
get rid of the unhealthy elements and influences which have taken their
place. And when we have done that we will have many fewer of the sort of
people who look for solutions to their personal problems in cults. It
will be a long and difficult task, and we'd better get started soon.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or
http://www.natall.com.
To contact us, write to:
National Vanguard Books
Attention: ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
(c) 1997 National Vanguard Books
Your organization is being talked about, and I
thought you might like to know. I want to make it clear that I am not
associated with the following.
If you would rather listen to the
following message, rather than read it, down load it at:
http://www.natall.com/radio/ts/102597.WAV
American Dissident Voices Broadcast of October 25, 1997
PROMISE
KEEPERS
by Dr. William Pierce
If you watch the news on television regularly,
I'm sure you saw the huge
get-together of so-called "Promise
Keepers" in Washington a couple of
weeks ago: hundreds of thousands of
mostly White men hugging each other,
holding hands, and rocking back and
forth with their eyes closed. Some
of them were shaking and crying or singing
and clapping their hands much
like one used to see in an old-fashioned
revival tent. I was fascinated
by the phenomenon -- and by the reaction of
various elements to it.
The most interesting reaction was that of the
feminist organizations.
They clearly were worried. They did not like the idea
of a large number
of White males gathered together for any purpose. Some of
the feminist
commissars made cautious statements to the media. They expressed
their
concern about the Political Incorrectness of men getting together
as
men. They saw this as a very dangerous development. What if the
all-male
Promise Keepers, said to have nearly three million members, decided
to
use their numbers politically? Suppose they decided to back
candidates
for public office or to express their collective opinion on some
matter
of public policy. The very thought gave them the cold shivers.
On
such matters as abortion for convenience the Promise Keepers, as
a
fundamentalist Christian group, do not share the views of the
feminists.
And the Promise Keepers disagree with the feminists on such
matters as
lesbianism and homosexuality in general -- although, a lot of
male
homosexuals must have been looking with considerable interest at all
of
those men hugging each other.
The concerns of the feminists went beyond
specific issues such as
abortion for convenience and lesbianism, however.
They were profoundly
disturbed by the fact that the Promise Keepers were an
unapproved group.
It's fine for Blacks to organize, or Jews, or homosexuals,
or women, but
heterosexual White men are the enemy. They're not supposed to
organize.
They're supposed to be kept disorganized, confused, and impotent,
so
that they can't get in the way of "progress" and the march
toward a New
World Order.
But, the more I learn about the Promise Keepers,
the more I'm inclined
to believe that they really won't be much of an
obstacle on the road to
a New World Order. On the truly essential issues,
they are already
there. Consider race, for example. The founder of the group,
Bill
McCartney, used to be a football coach at the University of
Colorado,
where I got my doctorate, and his daughter used to love the
Black
players on his team. He seems to be proud of the fact that he now
has
two non-White grandchildren sired by different members of the
team.
Although there are very few Blacks among the rank and file membership
of
Promise Keepers, it's not from lack of trying on McCartney's part.
He
has an affirmative action hiring program for his organization which
has
resulted in his office staff being fully a third non-White. He
has
vigorously recruited non-White directors for the governing board of
the
group. At Promise Keepers rallies held anywhere near the Mexican
border,
he literally buses in thousands of mestizos to add "racial
diversity" to
the audiences. He talks about the meaninglessness of
borders. His
meetings often feature Jewish, Black and other non-White
preachers, and
he uses posters and banners picturing Whites and non-Whites
together.
And he always plays the White racial guilt card. At a meeting of
30,000
men, nearly all of them White, held in the New Orleans Superdome
last
summer, McCartney complained about the lack of non-Whites in
the
audience. "Where are the men of color?" he asked. And then he
continued,
"I want to tell you why they're not here. There's a spirit of
White
racial superiority that exists in this nation. It's an insensitivity
to
the pain of men of color. We have not been washing their feet. We
have
not been feeling their pain." Whenever the opportunity presents
itself,
McCartney will get down on his knees, pull off the shoes of any
Black
within reach, and give a personal demonstration of foot-washing.
Now, it's really not important whether one marches toward the New
World
Order with a copy of the Bible in one's hand, or a copy of Das
Kapital.
It doesn't matter whether one's admission pass is signed by Jesus or
by
Karl Marx. I really hate to say bad things about anyone that
the
feminists don't like, but the fact of the matter is that the
Promise
Keepers, on the basis of their racial doctrines alone, are a
dangerous
and destructive group. Perhaps patriots should be grateful that
the
feminists have a new group to worry about and to contend with on
social
issues, but patriots should not let themselves be fooled into
believing
that Promise Keepers can be our allies, just because they are
saying the
right things on some issues: just because they condemn
homosexuality,
for example, or because they deplore the decay of the
institution of
family. They are so dead wrong on race that nothing else they
say or do
can possibly compensate for this.
Racial egalitarianism and the encouragement of
racial mixing are not the
only problems with the Promise Keepers. There's
something basically
unhealthy about these people -- I might almost say
unmanly. When I watch
a group of them doing their thing -- holding hands and
rocking back and
forth with their eyes closed and praying aloud -- I become
distinctly
uncomfortable. I mean, these are grown men. Why are they doing
this? Is
this religion? Or is it some sort of feel-good group therapy?
The whole thrust of the Promise Keepers' doctrine bothers me, with
its
emphasis on guilt, confession, self-flagellation, submission, and
the
washing of Black feet. I realize that there are different currents
in
Christianity which have come to the fore at different periods
in
history, but there's something distinctly un-White,
something
essentially Levantine rather than European, about the current in
the
Promise Keepers' doctrine. I really don't like this soft and
weepy
"forgive me, oh Lord, for I am a sinner" approach to the
problems we are
facing as a race when what's needed is the vigorous use of a
whip to
drive the destructive and unhealthy elements out of our society.
Even if we had to deal only with the problem of trying to repair
the
damage which has been done to the American family and oppose
the
feminists who are largely responsible for that damage, and even if
we
had to deal with this problem in a Christian manner, we wouldn't
need
the Mother Theresa approach of the Promise Keepers; we would
need
instead a much firmer approach. It is good to remember the story
of the
13th-century papal legate. He was asked by a military leader attacking
a
city in southern France -- a city which was a stronghold of heretics
--
how his soldiers could tell who was a heretic and who was not. The
papal
legate answered simply: "Kill them all. God will sort them
out." I don't
believe that we need to take a religious approach at all
to fixing
America. However, when dealing with radical feminists, I do believe
that
the proper approach is closer to that of the papal legate
in
13th-century France than it is to that of Mother Theresa. They are
an
incurably sick bunch.
There's something else that bothers me about the
Promise Keepers. It's
the style as well the content of their doctrine. Let me
go back to what
I mentioned a minute ago about their penchant for holding
hands and
weeping and confessing their sins to strangers in big meetings.
These
things are not just incidental or peripheral. The men in Promise
Keepers
are told that this sort of behavior is not only acceptable, but it
is
necessary. It is a constant at their meetings. It is the
central
feature.
What this reminds me of more than anything else
is so-called
"sensitivity training," a brainwashing technique that
is very effective
with a certain type of person with a weak sense of personal
identity, a
low level of self-esteem, and a strong need for group acceptance.
It is
a technique that can be used very effectively to change many
people's
ideas and behavior. The Communists mastered the technique back in
the
1920s and 1930s and used it on a huge scale. The public confessions
they
obtained with the method are notorious. Today the U.S. government
and
many businesses, use the technique to force White people to change
their
attitudes on racial matters. Cults also use the technique to control
the
thinking of their members. It makes zombies of people: the right sort
of
people, that is; people who are susceptible to the
technique.
I am alarmed by the fact that there are so many
of our people who are
susceptible. This is a time which demands strength from
us. The problems
we are facing require every bit of manliness we can muster.
Among the
attributes of a man are a sense of personal dignity, of self-worth,
and
of self-reliance. This is true of a White man whether he is a
Christian
or not. The sort of self-abasement we see at every meeting of
Promise
Keepers is contrary to our concept of manhood. It is much more in
accord
with the feminists' idea of what a man should be like: namely, weepy
and
submissive.
We live in an unnatural environment these days
which is confusing to our
instincts, whether we are men or women. Most boys,
in particular, are
not raised in a way which naturally strengthens and
develops the manly
virtues. Boys raised on a farm a century ago were given
work to do from
the time they could walk. Everyone was expected to pull his
own weight.
This helped a boy develop a sense of self-worth and
self-reliance. And
boys learned from a close working association with their
fathers what
was expected of a man. This association all too often is absent
today
and in nearly all cases is greatly attenuated in comparison to what
it
used to be. In very few families today does a boy have an opportunity
to
do any meaningful work with his father.
On top of this is a Politically Correct
educational system which makes
things much worse by de-emphasizing everything
which used to contribute
to a boy's sense of identity and to help him acquire
a strong set of
standards and values. Take a close look sometime at the old
McGuffey's
Readers, which were used 100 years ago to teach young Americans in
our
elementary schools how to read and to build their vocabulary and
sense
of style while strengthening their understanding of grammar and
the
rules of spelling. Nearly every story also taught a moral
lesson,
beginning with very simple lessons, of the sort found in Aesop's
fables,
and progressing to stories which illustrated and praised the virtues
of
courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry,
loyalty,
and industry. Personal dignity too. Many of the stories were based
on
historical incidents, ranging from Roman times to the
American
Revolution. By the time a boy had progressed through the whole
series of
readers and finished elementary school he had been exposed to
dozens of
historical role models and had developed a strong sense of
identity:
that is, a historical sense of who his people were and what they
were
like, what they had gone through during their history, what their
values
were, and what they believed. And he had acquired at least a
rudimentary
concept of personal honor. He might still grow up to be a crook
or a
bum, but at least he knew the difference between honorable
and
dishonorable behavior.
Now, of course, to modern educators the McGuffey
Readers are intolerably
racist and sexist. The values they teach are European
values, White
values, and that just won't do in a multiracial society. The
concept of
proper behavior is one thing for Europeans and something quite
different
for Africans or Chinese. The same objection is raised against
the
historical lessons. Why should boys learn from anecdotes about Romans
or
Germans instead of Zulus and Ubangis? And to teach boys bravery
and
chivalry really gets the feminists steamed. So the McGuffey Readers
and
everything like them were tossed out long ago, our schools have
become
what they are today, and it is no wonder that a great many of the
young
men who pass through them are confused and disoriented -- not to
mention
the young women.
Then, there is the effect of the modern
entertainment media, primarily
television.
I won't even get into that
today. Let it suffice to say that many of the
problems in our society the
Promise Keepers talk about are real
problems, and they need to be dealt with.
But the men who are attracted
to the Promise Keepers also have problems --
personal problems -- and
those problems need to be dealt with too, but not in
the way the Promise
Keepers or any of the other cults deal with the personal
problems of the
people they attract. These personal problems, these personal
weaknesses,
which have arisen because of flaws which have developed in our
society
-- in our life-styles, our educational system, our mass media --
are
exploited by the cults to win converts. The cults depend on
these
weaknesses, and they are much more interested in taking advantage
of
them than in curing them.
Which is to say that when the Promise Keepers
encounter a man whose
sense of manly propriety and manly dignity has gone so
awry that he is
attracted, rather than repulsed, by the spectacle of other
men hugging
each other in public, confessing their imagined "sins"
to each other,
and looking for Black men whose feet they can wash, the
Promise Keepers
encourage him to join and do these things himself, rather
than trying to
help him get a grip on himself and behave the way a man should
behave.
This is a fundamental flaw that all cults have. They attract people
who
have serious personal problems, and in order to do that they
encourage
and exacerbate these problems rather than trying to cure them.
Some
cults become quite large and quite strong by this strategy and are
even
able to achieve certain goals using their flawed members. But I
find
this whole cult strategy extremely distasteful.
One of the goals of the Promise Keepers is
strengthening the American
family, but I'm dubious about their prospects for
success in the long
run. It becomes a case of the blind trying to lead the
blind. It becomes
a case of the more seriously flawed men in our society
setting out to
cure the problems which contributed to their flaws. If we are
to cure
what's wrong with the American family, then we need men with a
strong
sense of identity and self-worth, men who know who they are and
what
they want, to tackle the problem. We need self-reliant men, not men
who
are attracted to a cult like a moth to a candle.
One of the unfortunate things about life in
America at the end of the
20th century is that we'll be seeing a lot more of
cults in the next few
years, cults of all sorts. As American society
continues to unravel,
more and more men and women will be grasping for
straws, grasping for
something to hold to, grasping for something which
promises to give them
the sense of security and certainty which they so
desperately need.
But the solution to our problems, the cure for our ailing
society, will
not come from these cults: certainly not from a cult which
encourages
White men to wash the feet of Black men and whose leader boasts of
his
mulatto grandchildren. We can only have a healthy society again
by
solving the problems of life-style and education and mass media that
I
have mentioned. We can only have a healthy society and healthy
families
again when we are able to return to the sort of life-style which
allows
children to work together with their parents and learn from
their
parents -- boys from their fathers and girls from their mothers --
and
when our educational system has shaken off the last trace of
Political
Correctness, and our entertainment media, as well as our news
media,
have been taken out of the hands of Jews.
This does not mean that we must return to the
past and all grow up on
farms like we did a century ago and all read
McGuffey's Readers in
school. But it does mean that we must restore to our
lives the essential
elements from our past which allowed us to be healthy
then, and we must
get rid of the unhealthy elements and influences which have
taken their
place. And when we have done that we will have many fewer of the
sort of
people who look for solutions to their personal problems in cults.
It
will be a long and difficult task, and we'd better get started
soon.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=
The text
above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program
sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
For more information about National
Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or
http://www.natall.com.
To contact us, write
to:
National Vanguard
Books
Attention:
ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
(c) 1997 National Vanguard
Books