Talk:William Luther Pierce/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →

Contents

Article comments

Edited article for greater accuracy. See [[1]]

FYI: Hillsboro, is only a PO Box mailing address. Mill Point, is the actual place location. Added link to News Articles written by Pierce to References Section and to external links: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/bsearch.php?author=Dr.%20William%20L.%20Pierce News Articles written by Pierce

Added sources and facts about the SPLC "tax exempt" mis-characterization of Pierce's Cosmotheism and of "Who Rules America?" about claim of replacing elites:

Other criticisms have been harsher; for example, the Southern Poverty Law Center has often deliberately mis-characterized Pierce's religion of Cosmotheism as being "an unsuccessful tax dodge". In fact, Pierce won from the IRS in court at least 60 acres of tax exempt status land for his Cosmotheist Community Church, out of the total 346 acres that he had owned in Mill Point, WV, near Hillsboro, WV, and of which the other portions of land were for both the National Alliance Political Organization HQ and for some other buildings, etc., and for his National Vanguard Books warehouse and office and their other buildings.

Source: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:yx33CW_g_QoJ:www.adl.org/explosion_of_hate/history.asp+Tax+Exempt+Status+for+Cosmotheist+Community+Church+Land&hl=en

The Turner Diaries

Although The Turner Diaries was only available by mail order and at extremist gatherings ... Um, you can buy it at amazon.com --Zoe

Hence the "was." My copy comes from Barnes and Nobles. Danny
Ah, thanks, I didn't understand your qualification there. --Zoe
No probs. I am actually thinking of doing an article on the book itself, which had a profound influence on the militia movement. After I finish my president tables tho. Danny
Yes, we do need an article on the book. I thought about starting one, but as I've never read it, I'm probably not the best person to write it.  :-) Good luck at staying NPOV. -- Zoe

No matter where you bought your copy of The Turner Diaries, it was published via National Vanguard Books. Some printings are "Barricade Books" but that is a more recent run that National Vanguard outsourced. (Post Oklahoma-City era printings bear the Barricade Books logo.) Up until recently, both A9.com and BN.com listed it as "Special order from publisher, ships in 2-4 weeks." but now I see they stock it. My original copy was purchased through BN.com and it took 5 weeks to arrive. That was 2000. I've since passed on that copy and acquired a hardcover edition signed by Dr. Pierce himself. --Sponge

The use of the term "extremist" was very biased. The part quoted above, "Although The Turner Diaries was only available by mail order and at extremist gatherings..." is almost biased to the point of being inflammatory. One of those "extremist gatherings" where The Turner Diaries can somtimes still be found includes gun and knife shows. This even goes back to McVeigh himself, where the interest in the book is not always based on the racial aspect, but on the fictional (?) efforts of the government to ban firearms, etc. If I remember correctly, McVeigh said that one of the things that 'set him off' was the government seige of a Church in Waco, TX (which was supposedly started over firearms violations). RL Barrett 22:53 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

I noticed a few minor errors in this article. The name of the main character in The Turner Diaries was Earl Turner. Also, the bombing of FBI headquarters doesn't occur in the novel until the second or third chapter - the novel opens with the main character reminiscing about the "gun raids", when federal agents went door to door collecting firearms. The name of Pierce's radio program was American Dissident Voices, not Dissident Voices.

Then please edit the article to fix the errors! :) Try it, it is fun. --mav

66.2.156.24/5's edit's appear very POV to me. Revert back to Snoyes edit. Just giving this brief explanation here. Flockmeal 03:19, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, "Flockmeal" and "RickK" the edits are "factual" and "unbiased" as opposed to "Snoyes' own edit" which really was just typically JDL/ADL and leftist or Marxist "Political Correctness" POV propaganda.
Whoever you are, your response does not sound like that of a person who subscribes to the NPOV-rule of content-editing. In fact, it sounds like you're some sort of neo-Nazi partisan. Geoffrey C Vargo 23:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I have just reverted it back for factual "accuracy" and "objectivity" to the version as of 22:57, 11 Jan 2004.
I agree, "fictional" and "novel" are redundant, but, "futuristic" is both more descriptive and accurate. Thanks! :D
It ain't "futuristic". It's set in the future, but there's nothing "futuristic" about it. These words actually have meanings in conventionally-used English, you don't just pepper sentences with them to taste. - David Gerard 15:27, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

I merged the content of the Cosmotheism article in here as a new section. --BM 18:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Broken links and external links

Due to the sensitive nature of Dr. William Pierces political view there has been censorship on this topic of valid external links.

  • The current link to racialpride.com for a copy of the turner diaries does not work, and thus I suggest instead to include a working link:

[http //www solargeneral.com/library/TurnerDiaries.pdf Text of The Turner Diaries]

Other external links which are valid and were censored include links to the online NV newsportal http //www nationalvanguard.org

As well to the largest collection in the world of texts, essays, audio files and video produced by Dr. William Pierce on http //www solargeneral.com

I don't believe these links to be personal promotion, as Dr. Pierce is dead.

  • If anyone's interested in learning more about the person who posted this, they might like to look here — the comment beginning: “It is clear that...”. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Censored Links

Why was this link removed from the Pierce article?

Probably because wikipedia is edited by lefty liberal nuts who have no concept of appreciation for free speach and actively work to prevent people reading such materials.

Edits by 216.45.193.173

Edited article for greater accuracy. FYI: Hillsboro, is only a PO Box mailing address. Mill Point, is the actual place location. Added link to News Articles written by Pierce to References Section and to external links: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/bsearch.php?author=Dr.%20William%20L.%20Pierce News Articles written by Pierce

Added sources and facts about the SPLC "tax exempt" mis-characterization of Pierce's Cosmotheism and of "Who Rules America?" about claim of replacing elites:

Other criticisms have been harsher; for example, the Southern Poverty Law Center has often deliberately mis-characterized Pierce's religion of Cosmotheism as being "an unsuccessful tax dodge". In fact, Pierce won from the IRS in court at least 60 acres of tax exempt status land for his Cosmotheist Community Church, out of the total 346 acres that he had owned in Mill Point, WV, near Hillsboro, WV, and of which the other portions of land were for both the National Alliance Political Organization HQ and for some other buildings, etc., and for his National Vanguard Books warehouse and office and their other buildings.

Source: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:yx33CW_g_QoJ:www.adl.org/explosion_of_hate/history.asp+Tax+Exempt+Status+for+Cosmotheist+Community+Church+Land&hl=en

What text in your attached link offers evidence that the SPLC's characterization of Pierce's organization is inaccurate (he asked, quixotically)? --Goethean 18:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that the SPLC's characterization is accurate? Roseblossom2 18:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This text from the attached link offers evidence that the SPLC's "characterization" of Pierce's religion of Cosmotheism is "inaccurate", indeed, Goethean:

"That same month, Pierce bought the West Virginia farm. He converted it to a compound and called it the "Cosmotheist Community Church." Pierce then filed for Federal, state and local tax exemptions. But in 1986, the "Church" lost its state tax exemption for all but 60 acres and those buildings being used exclusively for "religious purposes.""

Pierce owned 346 acres of land at Mill Point, but, at least 60 acres of it was actually TAX EXEMPTED by the State and IRS, and then quite specifically and only for his religion or "Cosmotheist Community Church".

Therefore, actual "evidence" only suggests the exact opposite from what the SPLC had said, that "Pierce's religion of Cosmotheism" was characterized as being "an unsuccessful tax dodge". On the contrary, it was completely successful, but, just not for Pierce's either own "political" organization, the National Alliance, and nor for his own National Vanguard Books, however, or the other 286 acres of land of which were both denied any "Tax Exempt" status by both the State and the IRS.

There is nothing very "quixotic" about the actual facts and/or NPOV accuracy is there?

Thanks, and just don't be anyone's April Fool. :D

Your point seems to be that Pierce's church was a successful tax dodge. --Goethean 19:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, and just as are all "churchs" and just as are all "religions"! You got it, Goethean! So you are really no April's Fool, Goethean, afterall! LOL! :D The SPLC was wrong! The actual facts prove it.

I would like to point out that, as is clear from this link, 216.45.193.173 has deceptively edited his own words on this talk page in order to make them relevant to my subsequent reply. If the facts prove me wrong, then why did you feel the need to change your own words? --Goethean 19:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is clear that I "edited" my words for "accuracy", as you should, and also, you should "cite" your own "sources" before reverting someone else's edits in the future. There is and there was nothing "deceptive" about my editing my own words, but, it sure was quite "deceptive", of you, falsely saying so, now wasn't it?


That link didn't work. Hopefully this one does. --Goethean 19:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another Red-herring and/or Strawman Arguement? The point has already been made and was proven by me, that the SPLC had "deliberately mis-characterized" and that the SPLC had falsely slandered "Pierce's own religion of Cosmotheism" by their falsely calling Cosmotheism or his religion an "unsuccessful tax dodge", and of which, it really wasn't. You can "make-up" whatever else you want about "my deception", but, like the SPLC, it also just can't stand up to the actual facts now can it? An April Fool, indeed! LOL! :D

This anon is clearly not a new user; his style is very reminiscent of other PoV pushers who have been blocked or banned in the past. I think that we should ask someone to check into the IP address, and compare it to that of ex-users such as Dnagit. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's User:Paul Vogel, whose year-long ban has just started again. If he'd been able to keep off Wikipedia, it'd be up by now ... - David Gerard 01:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. Ah, OK, thanks.
  2. With regard to recent changes, I made a series of copy-edits (correcting punctuation, adding Wiki-links, etc.) which were reverted by the Vogel-sockpuppet, and which other editors didn't notice when deleting his additions. I've just reverted to my version (but repaced Goethean's addition of a source). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, cleaning up after Vogelisms can be a bit of work, since his stuff is of "shoot on sight" status. Sorry if I hit anything you'd added! - David Gerard 12:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I didn't add any sources. They were all added by Vogel. In fact, I removed one that didnt seem relevant. --Goethean 13:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry — I must have misread the History. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Paul Vogel" is just the "excuse" "David Gerard" and BM and some others here of a certain POV bias abuse to censor this article and others without them providing their own factual NPOV citations or sources. Isn't your calling someones factual edits just "Vogelisms" a strange "personal attack" of some kind? I guess some at Wikipedia are allowed to do this, while others are not? Examples are: Pierce did die of cancer. His mountain headquarters was in Mill Point, WV, not really in Hillsboro, WV, which was just a PO Box address. Pierce's Cosmotheism was actually recognized by both the IRS and State as being a Tax Exempt Religion for 60 acres out of the 346 acres of land he owned at Mill Point, WV. And, also, "The Creativity Movement" or "religion" really has nothing to do with Dr. Pierce's "Cosmotheism", although, the "Transhumanism" movement actually does! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Luther_Pierce&action=history ETC., ETC.-ANON

216.45.221.155/Paul Vogel

It's been determined that 216.45.221.155 (talk · contributions) is in fact Paul Vogel. I've banned 216.45.221.155 for an initial period of 24 hours until I can ascertain the proper procedure with an IP-address sockpuppet of a banned User. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I blocked him for one month. Someone seems to have unblocked him, without giving a reason. I'm trying to find out who and why; in the meantime, I've blocked him again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've now blocked his new account for a month. He's really not very bright, is he? Nor does he seem to have much of a life. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone here that can't see your obvious Jewish and POV bias and KOSHER PC-censorship, "Mel", is really not very bright are they? POV Censoring articles in SSEE ignorance is some life, eh Mel? LOL! :D

Edits by 203.49.136.105

The edits by 203.49.136.105 (talk · contribs)[2], reverted by HOTR[3], and then reverted back to by roseblossom2 (talk · contribs)[4], were made by a Stormfront (online site) user named "Val_Kyrie", and discussed in the Stormfront fora here. Tomer TALK 23:51, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

WTF??? What's all that about? Geoffrey C Vargo 23:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

False statements about Cosmotheism and a lack of understanding

This is 100% FALSE this statement: (cosmotheism) is In effect it is a form of panentheism.

The statement that cosmotheism is a form of panentheism is false. The idea behind cosmotheism is that the laws of physics enable an unconscious universe to evolve conscious life and that conscious life takes control of its own conscious to attain godhood. Man is thus seen as a bridge towards higher consciousness or God in a child-like form that needs to "grow up" in conscious evolution into godhood.

Why are there no links to the cosmotheism.net web site or to the national alliance web site?

Corrected pov errors and added the correct titles to those links. See [[5]]


Understanding Cosmotheism?

Actually, Cosmotheism is a form of panentheism, as "GOD", is just another name for the impersonal force of the Cosmos, as a unifed whole, itself! That creative but impersonal FORCE of "GOD/Cosmos" is naturally inherent within all of the Cosmos as a Unified Whole. See pantheism

The Cosmic and Biological Evolution that you mentioned within Cosmotheism are just two processes of the many creative but impersonal DIVINE FORCES of and inherent to all of Nature and of and to all of the Cosmos. :D See Evolution

Reverted pov edited article back to being an NPOV article below:


This is the NPOV article See [[6]] that has been POV reverted or deleted or that was vandalized or "removed" by:

article removed -Will Beback 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

here.


How can it be possible to maintain an NPOV in an article about a man with views such as Pierce's? The very fact that he judges a person's worth according to skin-pigmentation and/or religion makes it impossible for anyone other than the so-called 'Aryan' to maintain a truly neutral attitude towards him -- at least as far as his political convictions are concerned. Any discussion of Pierce's politics could very well degenerate into a contest in which those of us declared 'subhuman' or 'demonic' by Pierce's ideology are forced to justify our right-to-exist to anyone who seeks to defend said ideology. 69.117.105.204 07:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not that hard. We neither damn Adolf Hitler nor bless Mother Theresa. As an encyclopedia we're not (or shouldn't be) defending anything, instead describing everything in a neutral tone. It's up to the readers to make judgements. -Will Beback 10:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it really has been very hard to maintain a NPOV in regard to articles that are "sensitive" to certain "minorities" and to "certain" classes of people that are "above" any real "criticism" by any others within Wikipedia. That includes not just articles on Pierce, but, on any issues that are highly politically and emotionally charged thereby. If you look at the history and the Talk Pages of Pierce and Cosmotheism and Anti-semitism and a whole host of articles in Wikipedia, you will quickly see the Marxist and Political Correctness bias within almost all of them, especially, any articles that are critical of any Jews, Israel, the Holocaust, or any non-Whites or homosexual perverts. The facts are that this Wikipedia is biased in a very particular way that is not always respectful of the actual facts or any actual NPOV. Where did Pierce ever say that anyone was "subhuman" or was "demonic" and in his own ideology or that ever denied anyone's right to exist? It is false "assumptive" and false "presumptive" opinions like that, not based on any of the actual facts, that make any NPOV in any Wikipedia articles most unlikely and a real honest challenge to actually and consistently apply it to them all. For Will to say "it's not that hard", is intellectually dishonest, to say the least and equally applies to the Mass Media.

Pierce's Education

One thing that puzzles me about Pierce is his higher education. The question that occurs to me is this: Since his field of study was physics, what were his feelings about Eienstein's impact upon said field? Eienstein himself was Jewish, so how could Pierce, being so fiercely anti-Semitic, obtain a PhD in a field which was partly dependent on the theories formulated by an eminent Jewish scientist? Geoffrey C Vargo 03:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not that hard. We neither damn Adolf Hitler nor bless Mother Theresa. As an encyclopedia we're not (or shouldn't be) defending anything, instead describing everything in a neutral tone. It's up to the readers to make judgements. -Will Beback 10:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it really has been very hard to maintain a NPOV in regard to articles that are "sensitive" to certain "minorities" and to "certain" classes of people that are "above" any real "criticism" by any others within Wikipedia. That includes not just articles on Pierce, but, on any issues that are highly politically and emotionally charged thereby. If you look at the history and the Talk Pages of Pierce and Cosmotheism and Anti-semitism and a whole host of articles in Wikipedia, you will quickly see the Marxist and Political Correctness bias within almost all of them, especially, any articles that are critical of any Jews, Israel, the Holocaust, or any non-Whites or homosexual perverts. The facts are that this Wikipedia is biased in a very particular way that is not always respectful of the actual facts or any actual NPOV. Where did Pierce ever say that anyone was "subhuman" or was "demonic" and in his own ideology or that ever denied anyone's right to exist? It is false "assumptive" and false "presumptive" opinions like that, not based on any of the actual facts, that make any NPOV in any Wikipedia articles most unlikely and a real honest challenge to actually and consistently apply it to them all. For Will to say "it's not that hard", is intellectually dishonest, to say the least and equally applies to the Mass Media.

Pierce's Education

One thing that puzzles me about Pierce is his higher education. The question that occurs to me is this: Since his field of study was physics, what were his feelings about Eienstein's impact upon said field? Eienstein himself was Jewish, so how could Pierce, being so fiercely anti-Semitic, obtain a PhD in a field which was partly dependent on the theories formulated by an eminent Jewish scientist? Geoffrey C Vargo 03:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Do a search on the National Alliance website here: http://www.natall.com Or type in quotes "Einstein" and "Dr. Pierce" in a Yahoo or Google search and just see for yourself what Dr. Pierce actually thought of Einstein. I do believe that he considered him to be a "fairly competent physicist", although, just "highly over-promoted" and only because he was "Jewish": http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/einstein.html

Some Jewish criticisms of Einstein have been far harsher than that of even the late Dr. Pierce: http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.pdf


Please sign your name when responding to my posts. No offense, I just like to know who I'm talking to. Geoffrey C Vargo 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't ever care "who I am talking to"; I only care "that what is being said is actually true or not". And so should you, too! No offense, taken, Geoffrey C Vargo. :D

At times, knowing who's talking makes the sometimes exhaustive process of judging the veracity of a given statement unnecessary. For instance, knowing that a person making a statement about a political figure is commonly known to be on the payroll of said politician makes it all the easier to recognize such a statement as suspect. In fact, in the study of history, one finds that the origin of a particular source can sometimes yield more information than the source itself. Geoffrey C Vargo 12:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, as that is only the false "logical fallacy" of an arguement from "authority". 1 plus 1 equals two is a "truthful statement" totally regardless of who or whom states it. In fact, any "truth" that can not stand on the basis of its' own logic and reason and any "Squaring with Reality", is most likely only "false". Your "at times" is, therefore, only "intellectual laziness", at its' best, and is only "willful ignorance", at its' worst. I do agree and that as a group most "politicians" that are "on the take" are notorious for only "lying". I do not lie and I am not beholden to anyone. And any "truth" is found in only its' own rational and in its' own logical defense. Even "Satan" deserves his day in court. :D

BTW: Here is an exact quote of Pierce's concerning Einstein and Jews and their control of the Mass Media in general from "The Rubes and the Carnies":

"Einstein wasn't a charlatan. He was a very competent mathematical physicist, and he made some genuine contributions to our understanding of our world. But he did not invent nuclear energy or even lay the theoretical groundwork for the use of nuclear energy, nor is he the father of space travel or of modern physics. But he was a Jew, and because of that his name has been drummed into the public's consciousness. Every couch potato and baseball fan recognizes the name Einstein, but none of them has ever heard of James Clerk Maxwell, or Max Planck or Arnold Sommerfeld or Erwin Schrödinger or the other giants of modern physics. That's not because the work of these men was less important or less fundamental than that of Einstein; the reason is that they weren't Jews."

"Now I'll state a fundamental truth that is basic to an understanding of the nature of the Jews and of the Jewish role in our civilization. That truth is that the Jews as a whole are myth makers, illusion builders -- or to put it less politely, they are tricksters. Their whole existence among us is based on deception and illusion and misdirection. Some of them are very clever. Some of them are creative. But they are quite alien in their nature. It is almost as if they had landed here from another planet. They disguise their alienness with a remarkable talent for deception. We are like a bunch of rubes at a circus, at a carnival, and they are the carnies."

"And where the rubes are concerned, the carnies stick together. Certainly, not every Jew is involved in slave dealing or child prostitution or welfare fraud or is a member of the Organizatsiya or, in the case of older Jews, belonged to the Communist Party. But whenever the call "Hey, rube!" goes out, all of the carnies do their part to assure that the carnies win the fight -- which is why you didn't hear about the Israeli consulate in Rio de Janeiro being a center for child prostitution until I told you about it today. The nice, non-communist, non-gangster Jews who control your media thought that it would be better for the rubes not to know about it."

Source: Free Speech from the National Alliance-http://www.natall.com or http://www.natvan.com


This may help. [7]

Search on the National Alliance website here: http://www.natall.com Or type in quotes "Einstein" and "Dr. Pierce" in a Yahoo or Google search and just see for yourself what Dr. Pierce actually thought of Einstein. I do believe that he considered him to be a "fairly competent physicist", although, just "highly over-promoted" and only because he was "Jewish": http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/einstein.html

WTF?

Somebody please fix this discussion page, and ban the person who screwed up its continuity! Geoffrey C Vargo 06:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalisim

Because of vandalisim on this and the National Alliance page, I locked them for the time being. Unlock at your discretion. 3D jonny 19:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Pierce on George Lincoln Rockwell

The following text is from a commentary made by Pierce on Rockwell from a CD that contained a Rockwell speech. Some of this may be added later to the article. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=152961&page=3

"I'm William Pierce. I first contacted George Lincoln Rockwell in 1964. At the time I was teaching physics at Oregon State University and I was beginning to wonder what in the world was going on as the turmoil and chaos known today as the civil rights revolution got under way.

I didn't quite know what to make of it when my Jewish colleagues would ask me to sign petitions demanding that the university hire black faculty members and recruit black students.

Then one day I saw a short television news segment of Rockwell trying to speak to a group of students at a university in California while Jews in the audience screamed at him and threw bottles and stones. I heard only about two sentences of Rockwell's speech, and then the Jews rushed on to the stage and ripped loose the cable from his microphone. That evening I hunted up Rockwell's address in the library and wrote him a letter.

Two years later our correspondence had grown in to full time collaboration on my first magazine, National Socialist World, and the year after that, Rockwell was gunned down by a hate crazed assassin.

In 1964, when our relationship began, Rockwell was a 46 year old publisher of a monthly newsletter he called The Rockwell Report and the leader of the American Nazi Party, a small group in Arlington, Virginia. In early 1966, shortly before I moved to Virginia and began publishing National Socialist World, he reorganized his group as the National Socialist White Peoples Party.

He had been a philosophy student at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island before the Second World War. After war broke out in Europe he joined the Navy, became a naval aviator, and rose to the rank of commander.

After the war he studied art and then began a small advertising agency when he became concerned five or six years before I did about the growing influence of communist ideas and policies in America.

He associated himself briefly with various groups and individuals having a conservative, patriotic orientation. All of these were afraid to deal openly and forthrightly with the two issues that Rockwell soon came to realize were at the core of the problem: race and the Jews.

Anti-communism wasn't enough, he decided. One must attack not only the symptoms of the disease but its cause. One must expose the Jews as bearers of the Communist virus, and one must also understand that the great danger posed by the Jews is not that they generally favor leftist economic or social policies, but that they aim at destroying us through racial mixing.

By 1959 he had concluded that traditional conservatism was more of an impediment than an aid to the struggle against the Jews and he declared himself a National Socialist. Actually, he declared himself a Nazi, began wearing a uniform with a Swastika armband and greeted his followers with the Roman salute and a "Heil Hitler!"

This touch of Hollywood in Rockwell's approach to revolutionary politics always was a bone of contention between him and me. I argued that the uniforms, flags, and theatrical behavior, even the name "American Nazi Party", made it difficult for serious people to take him seriously. His medium got in the way of his message. He replied that if he put away the flags and armbands, wore a business suit, and shunned theatrics, the news media would ignore him and no one would hear what he had to say.

His aim, he said, was to make people pay attention to his simple core message of the need for rebuilding a White, Jew-free America based on the principles laid down by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf. When he had tried to present that message in a sober, serious way, no one had paid any attention to him. The newspapers and television stations wouldn't send reporters to his press conferences, they ignored his press releases, and the public didn't even know he existed but as soon as he raised the Swastika banner, the news media went crazy and swarmed all over him. He was seen on all the TV channels and what he said was reported in the newspapers.

Yes, I answered, the theatrics gets attention for you but your message gets badly distorted. The media try to make you look like a madman and a clown and to a large extent they succeed. The result is that most of the people attracted to you are losers, social outcasts, freaks. If you want to attract winners, serious, competent, idealistic people, you need a serious image.

Rockwell responded that it is the losers, the social outcasts, who make up the ranks of every revolutionary movement. They're the ones who are available, the ones who don't have anything to lose by becoming associated with a politically incorrect cause.

Individually they may not be very impressive but large numbers of them, organized and disciplined, would make a revolutionary army. He had tried appealing to what I called the winners, to the teachers and professors, to the doctors and lawyers and engineers, to the writers and artists, to the businessmen and the craftsmen, to his fellow military officers, to the careful, responsible men and women with steady employment and stable families, and he had found that while many of them agreed with him in principle, almost none had the moral courage to stand up and be counted among the righteous.

He had given speeches to groups of these people under the cover of several ostensibly conservative organizations. They would come up after his speeches, shake his hand, and tell him they admired him for saying what they also felt. But the merest suggestion from Rockwell to one of these people, that he ought to participate in an effort to take America back from the Jews and their collaborators would send the fellow scurrying away in fright. They were too comfortable, too corrupted by good living and materialism, too unaccustomed to taking risks and facing opposition. Only in the masses, Rockwell had finally concluded, were the recruits to be found that he needed to launch a political campaign to take America back and the masses could be reached only through the mass media.

I still had serious doubts as to whether the type of people Rockwell was attracting with his flamboyant tactics could be disciplined and used to build an effective organization and these doubts made me hold back from a whole-hearted support of his efforts. We collaborated on the publishing of National Socialist World and we continued to argue about other things. I gradually found out, however, that Rockwell was dead right about the moral cowardice and the servile conventionality of the great majority of Americans. Most of them would rather lose an arm and a leg than be suspected of thinking a politically incorrect thought and as I worked and argued with Rockwell, my appreciation of his own courage and idealism grew.

He was a man with several talents anyone of which could have earned a comfortable living for him, but he was also one of those rare individuals who is wholly in contact with reality, who wholly identifies with the world around him and who, therefore, is incapable of ignoring what he recognizes as wrong. To Rockwell, evil must be opposed; good must be upheld. To pretend that the world is other than it is was self-defeating. To lie about it or to try to fool others about it was unthinkable. Once his eyes were open to the Jews and what their policies were doing to america, there was no question of keeping his mouth shut and going on about his business. He had to speak out against them. He had to fight them. He would fight them anywhere, anytime, under any conditions, no matter what the odds and he would fight them with all the strength of his being. I'm sure that if there had been just a thousand men like Rockwell in America in 1966, we'd be living in a healthy, progressive, all White America today.

Like all of us, Rockwell had shortcomings, of course. He was sometimes mistaken in his facts. He thought Pablo Picasso was a Jew for example. He sometimes misjudged character in people. He had a tendency to oversimplify things and I'm convinced, more than ever, that both his theatrical tactics and his strategy of trying to persuade the masses before recruiting an elite cadre and building a strong infrastructure were unsound.

His evaluations of the basic moral health of America and of the intelligence and character of the American people were far too optimistic. He really believed in 1966 that the Jews and their collaborators could be beaten by 1972. His optimism fueled his activity and he eagerly sought opportunities to carry his message to anyone who would listen.

He spoke at many schools during the last two years of his life and we are fortunate to have a complete recording of a speech he gave at Brown University in the spring of 1966. The speech you will hear now will give you at least a sample of George Lincoln Rockwell's message and at the same time it should give you some idea of the flavor and style of the man."

67.72.98.45 02:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)