A World Gone Mad
A World Gone Mad is a Cosmotheist lecture given by Dr. William Pierce on January 30, 1977 at the office of the National Alliance in Arlington, Virginia. It appeared in the National Alliance Bulletin.
This is a source text. Spelling and smaller errors in the content can be corrected. The source is given in the "Source" part.
A few days ago I was looking through a batch of pamphlets and leaflets published by various groups at Portland State University, which M.S. brought here with him from Oregon. Some of the material was published by a homosexual group calling itself “Men’s Resource Center,” and the interesting thing about it was that, if one skipped over the explicitly homosexual statements, the material read just about like the great bulk of the garbage published by non-homosexual, White, liberal groups which is continually coming across my desk That is, it has the same general tone, the same general feeling. It all reflects basically the same sick and perverted view of life, whether it is form some Christian church group appealing for funds to fight racism in South Africa or from a local so-called “fair housing” group in Fairfax County, which puts out a monthly mimeographed bulletin.
As an example of this similarity, one of the publications of the queer group in Portland is a leaflet announcing a men’s potluck dinner at the home of one of the members and requesting, in small print at the bottom, that no bring any table grapes or head lettuce or Gallo wine--the reason being, of course, that the White growers and producer of these grapes and lettuce and wine are--or were--involved in a dispute with some non-White labor groups. One just knows intuitively that in any conflict between Whites and non-Whites, White liberals will gravitate toward the non-White side. Even when the fight is between two labor unions, in this case the Teamsters and Cesar Chaves’ Chicanos, one knows the White liberals will be on the Chicano side.
As another example, one continually runs across the same jargon in nearly all these publication, queer or non-queer: the compulsive use of such words as chairperson instead of chairman, the breathlessly respectful references to the so-called “third world,” and so on.
But, more than anything concrete or specific that one can point to, this material all smells alike. I suppose that a connoisseur can distinguish something subtly different in the aroma of queer publication, but anyone call smell the same general stink that comes form everything written by White liberals, queer or not. It is the stink of decay, the stink of death.
I used to have a theory about the relationship between liberalism and homosexuality. It was based essentially on the non-masculine character of liberalism. That’s a hard concept to put your finger on, and I’m not really going to try to explain it tonight, except perhaps with a couple of examples. National Socialism is a masculine “ism.” Fascism is a masculine “ism.” there is a boldness, a forthrightness, an assertiveness about them. And I think it’s fair to say that even communism should be regarded as a masculine “ism.” at least, in its Stalinist variety. There’s certainly nothing effeminate about Stalinism, regardless of how much we hate it.
And please note the distinction between the term “effeminate”--which I mean as essentially the negation of “masculine”--and the term “feminine,” which is complement of “masculine.” Masculinity and femininity are both healthy, though certainly different, characteristics. Effeminacy, on the other hand, is a profoundly unhealthy characteristic. And liberalism is an essentially effeminate “ism.” And I mean, specifically, White liberalism. Jewish liberalism is an entirely different thing. Actually there is no such animal.
As I said, I used to have this theory, but it has a couple of weaknesses. For one thing, it became apparent that, although the great majority of queers are liberals, a great many liberals are not queers. One can almost, in fact, divide White liberals into two neat groups: the members of one group, whether queers or not, display in their personal behavior the essentially unmanly attitude toward life which is a fundamental characteristic of liberalism, while the members of the other group tend instead toward a hard-nosed, aggressive, non-effeminate posture.
Those in the first group are the hand-wringers, the bleeding hearts. They are the ones always babbling about “love,” the ones Jimmy Carter was able to con with his big smile and his platitudes during the recent election campaign. They are the mush-headed liberals, the saps, the ones who are perpetually participating in so-called “workshops” and “rap sessions” and “encounter groups” and “sensitivity seminars.” They wear their neurotic guilt and their self-hatred on their sleeves. It’s almost as if each of them has a sign on his back saying, “I’m White. Please kick me.” those are the ones who fit my theory.
But there are also plenty who don’t. They’re the ones who’ll kick back if you kick them--provided you’re White, of course. There’s nothing mush-headed about them, nothing fuzzy about their thinking. They know how to get the job done. And that job is the destruction of America, the destruction of Western civilization, the destruction of the White race.
They worked to bring about the pardoning of draft-dodgers, and now they are working for the pardoning of military deserters too. They have re-written the public-school textbooks, so that they’re now full of Black leaders of the American Revolution, Black cowboys who won the West, and long, tear-jerking eulogies about St. Martin Luther King, how much we all owe him, and how we ought to hate ourselves because a White man finally got fed up with him and shot him. And they’re scheming now about how they can cancel vital defense-oriented research programs and prevent the development of new weapons for our armed forces.
Every important liberal project is a destructive project--in fact, a self-destructive project. And that gives us, I believe, the clue to the relationship between homosexuality and liberalism. Forget, for at moment, about the sexual aspect of homosexuality and regard it as simply a self-destructive aberration. It is hard to imagine anyone more self-destructive, anyone more obsessed with self-contempt that a homosexual.
So, now if we take an overall view of liberals, we can see this one, outstanding characteristic which they all share, whether the soft-headed or the hard-headed variety: they have all rebelled against their own nature, against their natural role in the world. Some have rejected their natural sexuality; they are the queers. All have rejected their racial role as the natural masters of this earth. For some this racial rejection is turned against themselves personally; they are the soft-heads, the guilt-ridden hand-wringers. Others, the hard-heads, direct their hostility outward, against Western political and social institutions, and against cultural norms, against White rule or White dominance or the maintenance of White racial quality.
And what a strange thing this liberalism is! There are so many questions we can ask: Is it some sort of perverse reaction to the egoism and materialism which rule our thinking today, and to which we also are opposed?
I don’t think so. Liberals hate what they are, their race, their traditions--but self-denial, that is, asceticism of a Spartan life-style, a rejection of materialism, certainly doesn’t seem to be characteristic of many of then. They seem to be about as interested in their own bank accounts as everyone else is.
Then one notes the striking liberalism of all the Christian churches in recent decades, and one may be inclined to jump to the conclusion that liberalism is Christianity run wild, a sort of compulsion to carry out the program of the Sermon on the Mount: “The scum shall inherit the earth.” But the fact is that, in addition to the Christian liberals, there are many White liberals who belong to no church and profess no Christianity.
Perhaps, then, liberalism is some sort of built-in self-destruct mechanism activated by our unnatural lifestyle ever since the Industrial Revolution--a natural analogue to the instinct which makes lemming commit mass suicide when their population density becomes too high. Well, the fact is that, although I have puzzled over liberalism and its cause for years, I still cannot claim to understand it. It is just too abnormal, to perverse. Nevertheless, I am certain that our society can be cured of this disease and that , once cured, a relapse can be prevented.
It may be, of course, that the disease has already progressed so far that only radical surgery can bring about a cure. I’m rather afraid that’s the case--that many of the carriers of liberalism will have to be treated with extreme prejudice, as they say in the CIA.
But the more important question is how to prevent liberalism form recurring, or, if it does recur in isolated individuals, how to prevent it form spreading. And to that we do have an answer. All we have to do is look at the way it has spread in the past.
You know, most of the people today who profess liberal doctrines are not really liberals. They do not hate themselves or their race. They are not really salivating in anticipation of the Whites in Rhodesia being butchered and raped by Black terrorists, even if they do pay lip service to the Blacks. They aren’t obsessed by a desire to pull down Western civilization and submerge themselves and their children in a rising tide of colored sub humanity. In fact, they seldom, if ever, even think about these things.
They just want to be fashionable. They just want to have the right opinions. They want to talk and behave the way their TV tells them to, the way the smart set they see on TV talks and behaves. If their TV has succeeded in instilling any feeling of guilt in them, it’s a fairly superficial sort of guilt which will evaporate soon enough, after the news and entertainment media are in different hands.
But, despite the fact that real liberals are only a minority of the population, liberalism his spread, and it does have our country and, in fact, our whole race--at least, in the West--in a death grip today. And the reason is that there has been no significant opposition to it--certainly not in the last 32 years.
What more-or-less organized forces have opposed the spread of liberalism? Well, the conservatives, for one. Fifty years ago they were much better organized than today. But their strategy was strictly defensive, a hold-the-line strategy. And their philosophy was defensive too: defend the American way of life, defend the Constitution, defend our traditions and customs.
The Gentile business community was also an anti-liberal force--that is, until the businessmen were convinced it would be more profitable for them to switch than fight.
And the great masses of people didn’t really resist actively at all. Their resistance was only the passive resistance of inertia, the same sort of resistance they put up for a while to everything new or different. Now they are ready to defend liberal institutions and ideas with the same mindless, half-hearted enthusiasm with which they defended the older institutions and ideas.
Liberalism triumphed because those who opposed it--and those who might have opposed it--were spiritually empty. They had no strong, vital, positive spiritual basis for their lives--just a lot of mostly Oriental claptrap. And so the spiritual disease of liberalism really fastened itself on a sort of spiritual corpse--which is what our society was as liberalism began taking over, and still is. Except that today it is on the brink of becoming a physical corpse as well.
And so now we have a government dedicated to deserters and draft-dodgers here at home; to the destruction of the White people of southern Africa: to the further destabilization of our economy; and to continued decadence and degeneracy of every sort: cultural, political, spiritual.
As I’ve already indicated, I’m afraid the cure for the liberal disease is going to involve some painful surgery. But avoiding its recurrence is simply a matter of nerve again becoming a spiritual corpse, because liberalism is the sort of disease which, like anaerobic bacteria, can grow only in a vacuum.
Now, everything I’ve said up to this point may seem like a negative prologue to what follows. It may seem like the establishment of a negative base for our Truth, our program, our philosophy, relegating it to simply a means of plugging up a spiritual vacuum, in order to keep liberalism out. Well, that’s an unfortunate way of looking at it.
But it does seem true that often, if not always, mankind must be forced right to the brink of destruction in order for him to be able to summon up the inner strength to take another giant step upward. So one might even view liberalism as a sort of blessing in disguise--a terrible and dangerous blessing, indeed! We may not survive it.
But, really, in a world gone mad a sound mind is much more than merely a defense ageist insanity. And in a spiritually empty world a healthy soul, filled with our Truth, is much more than merely a defense against liberalism. It is the essential prerequisite not only for the continued survival of our race on this earth but also for the reassumption of our ordained mission, which is to be always the pioneers, the vanguard, in the never-ending ascent of the Path of Life, symbolized by our Life Rune.
Our people, our race, has always before been the vanguard of progress: the race which has searched out the secrets of life, peered deep into the inner mysteries of the atom and at the same time into the farthest reaches of the Universe, the only race to have set foot on another world--or, what’s more important--the only race to have wanted to.
Yet, all that we have done has been, in a sense, done unconsciously, blindly. We have followed our inner impulse, our inner Urge, intuitively, instinctively, and it has led us upward and upward. But we never really understood the why or the where. We didn’t understand the source of our upward Urge. Often we didn’t even realize it was there. And we didn’t know where it was leading us, or why. We did not understand that we are parts of the Whole, parts of the Creator, and that the Universal Will was acting through us.
And because we didn’t understand these things, or didn’t understand them clearly enough and didn’t make such an understanding the guide for our actions, we made some bad mistakes. We let a type of society grow up around us which is alien to our innermost nature, and we let the disease of liberalism take root in this society and spread until now it is suffocating all of us.
And this alien, diseased society blunted our instinct, confused our instinct, blinded our vision, stifled in the inner voice which had kept us, more or less, on the right track. And so now we are off the track, off the Path of Life although. We have lost our confidence, lost our will. We are no longer sure we want to be the vanguard. Why, that wouldn’t be fair to the other races!
We are in the process now of giving America back to the Indians--literally, of forcing our brothers and sisters in South Africa and Rhodesia to give their countries to the Blacks, and so weakening our military strength here and in Europe that we are virtually inviting another Mongol invasion from the East. And here we sit, night after night, in front of our television sets, while a gaggle of Hollywood Jews pumps more confusion and guilt into us because our ancestors owned Black slaves.
And so I tell you again, if we ever succeed in restoring sanity to this world, if we are to once again be the vanguard, it will only be after we have regained our vision, after we have again learned to heed our inner voice: the voice of our race-soul.
And if we are to maintain a sane world, it will only be because we substitute for the unconscious Urge which guided us in the past the conscious knowledge of out identity and our mission, and them make this conscious knowledge the basis of our social institutions, our politics, our legal system, our educational system, and our religion, throughout the White world.