牛死，亲戚死，
这样一个人就死了；
我知道一件事永远不会消失：
死者的事迹名声大噪。

——古挪威诗。

贡献

致我的父母沃尔特·格里芬和海伦·格里芬

9年02月19日上午1995时XNUMX分，俄克拉荷马城阿尔弗雷德·默拉联邦大厦的前半部被一场惊天动地的爆炸摧毁。这座建筑雄伟的柱子倒塌了，巨大的窗户也破碎了。第一层爆炸成第二层，最上面七层混凝土和钢材不断地倒塌，直到屋顶落在原来的第三层的水平上。电缆和断梁涌入街道。气体、烟雾和灰尘笼罩着天空。许多人浑身是血、灰尘和灰泥，哭着、困惑，跌跌撞撞地走出大楼，皮肤上嵌着玻璃碎片，骨头也碎了。一名男子躺在建筑物旁边的一个大弹坑里，尸体已着火。另一个人四处游荡，失去了左臂。一名年轻女子跑来跑去，尖叫着：“我的孩子在里面！”[1]马克·哈姆, 启示录中 俄克拉何马州: 韦科 和红宝石岭复仇 （波士顿：西北大学出版社，1997 年），第 47-48 页。

俄克拉荷马城爆炸案造成一百六十八人死亡，其中包括十九名儿童。[2]死亡人数见： 事实记录，18 年 1995 月 XNUMX 日；和辛西娅·马格里尔·韦茨勒，《爱，俄克拉荷马城》 “纽约时报”，第 13WC 节，18 年 1995 月 8 日，第 XNUMX 页。 XNUMX. 俄克拉荷马城警官林恩·麦康伯 (Lynn McCumber) 帮助从废墟中打捞出 49 具尸体。但他不得不留下一张男孩的脸，他说这张脸至今仍萦绕在他的梦中。麦坎伯使用红外相机检测到了一个小头和四个手指的形状。他用手电筒照进狭小的空间，看到一个孩子睁着眼睛。 “我爬到废墟下，把孩子的头放在手里，”麦康伯后来说。 “我知道他死了。而我却无能为力。”[3]“爆炸的后果” 今日美国，4 年 1998 月 1 日，第 2A-XNUMXA 页。

10 月 22 日当天上午 19 点 35 分，俄克拉荷马州公路巡逻队队员查理·汉格（Charlie Hanger）是一名拥有 1970 年军龄的老兵，他在 XNUMX 号州际公路上行驶时，经过了一辆没有牌照的亮黄色水星侯爵车。这辆旧车是 XNUMX 年代的车型，没有超速行驶，也没有鲁莽驾驶；它只是没有车牌。[4]有关麦克维被捕的材料取自理查德·塞拉诺 (Richard Serrano)， 我们的之一: 蒂莫西·麦克维（Timothy McVeigh）和俄克拉荷马州城市爆炸案 （纽约：WW Norton，1998），第175-179页。

汉格放慢了速度，滑到水星号后面，把它停了下来。当他走出巡逻车，走进春天凉爽的空气中时，穿着棕色短袖制服的他感到有些寒冷。停在前面的黄色汽车的驾驶员侧车门猛地打开，在打开的车门下面，汉格看到两只系带的黑色军靴掉到了人行道上。汉格在门后愣了一会儿，用门当挡箭牌。两周前，在路边 9 英里处，一名驾车者在像这次这样的例行交通停车中向一名同伴开了 XNUMX 毫米手枪，这对他来说还记忆犹新。但随后前面的水星号司机站了起来，开始向他走来，汉格可以看到他的双手。

汉格下了车，两人走近，在汉格的巡逻车和黄色水星号中间相遇。司机面色苍白，年轻，二十多岁，穿着黑色风衣和褪色的黑色牛仔裤。当他们沿着高速公路站得很近时，汉格不得不抬起头才能看到那个高得多的男人的眼睛。一阵微风吹过。

“我阻止了你，因为你没有展示标签，”汉格说。

司机回头看了一眼本应有车牌的地方，说自己开车时间不长，所以没有标签。

汉格要求查看销售单。

司机回答：“我没带。”

汉格要求查看他的驾驶执照。

男人把手伸进后袋，掏出一个迷彩色的皮夹，拿出驾驶执照递给汉格。汉格接过它，但他的眼睛没有在许可证上。他们的注意力都集中在别的东西上：那人的左臂下面有一个凸起，在部分拉链的风衣下面。

汉格让男子用双手慢慢打开夹克，男子开始把剩下的拉链拉下来。 “我有枪，”他说。

“举起双手，转身。”汉格命令道。

当那人转身时，汉格掏出左轮手枪抵住了那人的后脑勺。 “走到你的车后面。”

“我的武器已经上膛了，”当他们走向汽车时，这名男子说道。

“我的也是，”汉格说。

当他们到达水星号时，汉格命令那人把手放在树干上并张开双腿，那人照做了。汉格把手伸进男人的夹克里，掏出一把黑色的 45 口径格洛克军用突击手枪。房间里有一颗黑爪“警察杀手”子弹，当它进入某人的体内时，它会像蘑菇一样膨胀。弹夹中有十三发硬弹、高速弹药。

“我也有刀。”男子平静地说。他看起来一点也不紧张或生气，不像很多处于这种情况的人。

汉格从棕色皮套中取出刀，给这名男子戴上手铐，送他回到巡逻车，然后把他放在乘客座位上。汉格拿着这名男子的驾照，给调度员打电话，询问这名男子名叫蒂莫西·詹姆斯·麦克维(Timothy James McVeigh)，是否因任何未决指控而被通缉，或者有犯罪记录。调度员回电话说没有。汉格随后要求调度员检查水星号。当调度员回电话时，是通过手机打来的，因为有关俄克拉荷马城发生爆炸的无线电通讯非常多。他报告说，这辆车的前车主是一对来自阿肯色州的夫妇。

汉格告诉麦克维，他因携带和运输已上膛的枪支以及无牌照驾驶而收留他，并宣读了他的米兰达权利。他问麦克维是否可以搜查汽车，麦克维答应了。汉格把麦克维留在巡逻车里，走到水星号上，在里面四处探查。之后，他回到麦克维并告诉他，他可以选择自费拖车，或者把车留在路边。不管怎样，他可以在缴纳保释金后取回汽车。麦克维说他不想把车拖走。

“那封在前座的信封呢？”衣架问道。

“把它留在那里，”麦克维回答道。

当然，蒂莫西·麦克维就是那个人。他因策划和实施该国历史上最大规模的国内恐怖袭击而被判处死刑。死者躺在燃烧的建筑物旁边的巨大弹坑里，麦克维的一辆莱德租赁卡车装载了数千磅炸药，然后被炸成碎片。他的军队朋友特里·尼科尔斯被判犯有过失杀人罪和与麦克维共谋罪。

现在一切都说得通了，但在爆炸发生后，很少有人认为像麦克维这样的人，一个美国人，我们中的一员，可能对如此可怕的行为负责。几乎每个人都认为俄克拉荷马城发生的事情是外国人，特别是伊斯兰恐怖分子所为。一定是这样。卡车炸弹是他们标志性的攻击方式。毫无疑问，他们对美国干预中东争端感到愤怒，或者也许他们对海湾战争感到痛苦。他们以前就在这个国家做过这种事。 1993 年 XNUMX 月，也就是两年前，伊斯兰武装分子轰炸了曼哈顿世界贸易中心，造成六人死亡、数百人受伤。

对爆炸事件的早期反应的典型例子是哥伦比亚广播公司对前俄克拉荷马州国会议员戴夫·麦卡蒂的采访。麦卡蒂表示，有非常明显的迹象表明默拉大厦爆炸案是原教旨主义伊斯兰组织所为。他指出 PBS 曾经有一部纪录片叫做 美国的圣战 其中谈到了俄克拉荷马城伊斯兰武装分子的强大存在。随后多家新闻机构报道称，目击者看到三名看起来有中东血统的男子在爆炸前驾车离开默拉大厦。国务卿沃伦·克里斯托弗宣布，他将派遣阿拉伯语言专家前往俄克拉荷马城协助调查这起犯罪事件。[5]哈姆，第 54-55 页。

少数人在国外以外的其他地方寻找谁对这起爆炸事件负责，其中一些人推测这可能是伊斯兰国家及其领导人路易斯·法拉罕牧师所为。此外，一些记者还指出，爆炸发生在联邦调查局与得克萨斯州韦科市大卫教教派之间激烈而致命的对峙两周年之际。也许一些幸存的大卫教分支参与了俄克拉荷马城的事件。

韦科发生的事情始于 28 年 1993 月 XNUMX 日，当时，酒精、烟草和枪械局全副武装的特工在上空盘旋三架直升机，向卡梅尔山中心发起了他们所谓的“动态入口”，这是一个相互连接的集群。两层木结构建筑在韦科以外未开发的土地上脱颖而出。 BATF 行动的目的是根据该中心居民、大卫教派成员拥有非法枪支并将半自动步枪改装为机关枪的指控，发出搜查和逮捕令。随即，一场枪战爆发了。大多数人都看过电视片段，BATF 特工爬上梯子到一栋建筑物二楼窗户旁边的屋顶，一名特工破门而入进入房间。然后可以看到子弹从房间内穿过墙壁，外面的一名特工被击中并从梯子上爬下来。 BATF 与大卫教派之间的交火随着 BATF 部队的撤退而结束。四名 BATF 特工被杀，二十人受伤。六名教派成员被杀，其中包括一名儿童，五人受伤。

联邦调查局介入并呼吁大卫教徒离开那里。大卫派拒绝了，僵局开始了。联邦调查局和大卫教派之间的对决成为了一场媒体事件：美国公众——全世界——在电视上观看了这场戏剧性的事件，几天又几周过去了，仍然没有解决办法。大卫教派的领袖大卫·科雷什 (David Koresh) 三十岁出头，留着长发，胡子拉碴，看上去像酒吧乐队的主音吉他手，他立即成为名人。

19月XNUMX日凌晨，五十一天后，围城突然结束。两辆专门装备的艾布拉姆斯坦克和四辆布拉德利装甲车开始在脆弱的结构上打孔，并向中心发射催泪瓦斯，试图迫使大卫教徒离开。中午时分，可以看到建筑物中冒出浓烟，然后开始倾泻而出，然后火焰越来越大，然后整个中心都被火焰吞没，就像一堆被火柴点燃的树枝。[6]同上，第104页。
（哈姆，第 54-55 页。）

我记得 1993 年 XNUMX 月的那个早晨，我独自一人坐在机场等待转机航班。我从正在阅读的内容中抬起头来，我的目光落在了我所在位置附近的一台电视机上，整个屏幕上都是中心燃烧的图像。声音没有开，或者至少我听不到，周围似乎没有人注意到我。不知何故，这是超凡脱俗和不祥的：我独自一人，人们在阅读报纸和杂志，谈论和行走，电视上出现了这张令人难以置信的画面，我知道那是什么，一切都很安静。我记得当时闪回了几年前看过的一部电影， 现代启示录，它的最后一个场景，一切都在燃烧。

韦科的大火烧毁了卡梅尔山中心，将其化为灰烬。没有人做出任何努力来扑灭大火。七十六名大卫教徒死于地狱，其中包括科雷什和二十五个孩子。[7]有关韦科的死亡事件，请参阅 Kathy Fair 等人的“Fire Engulfs Cult Complex”， 休斯敦纪事报，19 年 1993 月 1 日，第 XNUMXA 页。

肯尼思·斯特恩是美国犹太委员会仇恨和仇恨团体方面的专家。当爆炸的细节开始浮出水面时，他感到一种怪异的感觉。他突然意识到俄克拉荷马城发生的事情与他所知道的一本书中的事件非常相似。那是一本地下小说，名叫 特纳日记。这本书是由一位反犹太主义者和种族主义者于 1970 世纪 XNUMX 年代写的，他现在仍然很活跃，名叫威廉·皮尔斯 (William Pierce)，笔名是安德鲁·麦克唐纳 (Andrew Macdonald)。尽管公众中很少有人听说过这本书，但它却被白人至上主义者和民兵类型广泛阅读。 特纳日记 描述了一群美国白人革命者出于种族动机而实施的恐怖行为，他们自称是反对腐败联邦政府及其支持者的组织，书中将其称为“系统”。这部小说由厄尔·特纳（Earl Turner）的日记组成，他是该组织的成员，最终也是其精英骨干组织的成员。皮尔斯书中引起斯特恩注意的事件是，该组织用一辆装满炸药的卡车对联邦大楼（在本例中是位于华盛顿的联邦调查局总部）造成了巨大破坏。书中使用的炸药是取暖油和硝酸铵肥料的混合物，就像政府官员所说的摧毁默拉大厦所用的炸药一样。斯特恩认为，这实在是太巧合了。[8]肯尼斯·斯特恩（Kenneth Stern），《平原上的力量：美国民兵运动和仇恨政治》（纽约：西蒙和舒斯特，1996），第 16 页。 XNUMX.

蒂莫西·麦克维的黄色水星号仍然锁着，被装上平板卡车，拖到俄克拉荷马城市中心附近的联邦调查局仓库。特工们使用 Slim Jam 撬开了门锁。身穿特卫强防护服、防护鞋和一双手套的监察特工史蒂文·伯迈斯特从乘客座位上拿起密封的信封，并将其交给联邦调查局证据响应小组的特工威廉·埃普赖特。埃普赖特把它拿到一张他已经清理干净、上面铺着白纸的桌子旁。埃普赖特戴着白手套，撕开信封的一端。然后他取出两叠纸，每叠纸都整齐地对折成三折，放在里面。书堆的最上面放着一张用麦克维独特的反冲风格写的字条。上面写着：“遵守美国宪法，我们不会开枪射杀你。”[9]搜查信封的叙述来自理查德·塞拉诺， 我们的一员： 蒂莫西·麦克维（Timothy McVeigh）和俄克拉荷马州城市爆炸案 （纽约：WW Norton，1998），第217-220页。

埃普赖特开始检查信封中的内容，结果发现是打印的纸张以及书籍和杂志的页面，其中部分用黄色记号笔突出显示。

有一份《独立宣言》的副本。

有一段剪报描述了美国独立战争中的列克星敦战役，讲述了当时人们反抗英国人所冒的巨大风险。书中重点介绍了一条盘绕的响尾蛇，“当它和平存在时，不会对任何人构成威胁，但当它被践踏时，它会像地球上的任何生物一样恶毒、致命地攻击。”

引用美国革命人物塞缪尔·亚当斯的话：“当政府恐惧人民时，就有自由。当人们惧怕政府时，就有暴政。”麦克维在引文下面写道：“也许现在就会有自由。”

有人对这个国家目前禁止手枪的“狂热”发出警告。

有一篇关于韦科围困的文章 兵痞 杂志。文章的标题提出了一个问题：“处决还是仁慈杀戮？”麦克维强调了“处决”这个词。他还强调了文章正文中的材料：“陆军发言人证实，绿色贝雷帽参与了对大约八十名烟酒枪械管理局特工的训练，作为对大卫教派宗教大院进行血腥袭击的最后准备工作的一部分。” “他们以军事方式针对美国公民进行部署。他们屠杀了八十多人，犯下了叛国、谋杀和阴谋罪。” “如果热度有点高，他们就会扔给我们一些黄狗屎官僚来让我们安静下来，但总而言之，他们会侥幸逃脱的。” “这个国家有麻烦了，伙计们，大麻烦，而且这不是来自任何街头犯罪分子。”麦克维在一些短语中划出了黄色条纹：“韦科的肮脏灰烬”、“权力变得疯狂”、“他们把自由女神逼到墙角并朝她的头部开了一枪”以及“烟酒枪械局” ，G-Men 中的盖世太保。”

默拉联邦大楼内设有政府机构，其中包括烟酒枪械局。

然后，埃普赖特特工从信封中取出的材料中还有其他东西：肯尼思·斯特恩记得的小说第六十一页和六十二页的复印件， 特纳日记。这些页面包含虚构的革命者厄尔·特纳 9 年 1991 月 XNUMX 日的日记条目。在条目中，特纳讨论了他的组织内战友对华盛顿国会大厦的迫击炮袭击，造成 XNUMX 人死亡，其中包括两名国会议员、一名副总统。内阁官员和四五名国会高级工作人员。麦克维强调了特纳日记中的这些句子：“我们今天袭击的真正价值在于心理影响，而不是直接伤亡。” “不过，更重要的是我们教给政客和官僚的东西。今天下午他们得知，没有一个是我们无法触及的。他们可以挤在城市的铁丝网和坦克后面，也可以躲在乡村庄园的混凝土墙和警报系统后面，但我们仍然可以找到他们并杀死他们。”

在威廉·皮尔斯的小说中， 特纳日记引发厄尔·特纳反政府恐怖行为的事件是，在禁止私人拥有枪支的联邦立法通过后，政府对枪支拥有者进行了一系列野蛮的突袭。特纳对袭击作出反应，用藏在卡车里的燃油和化肥炸弹炸毁了一座联邦大楼。这枚虚构炸弹的成分不仅与麦克维制造并引爆的炸弹几乎完全相同，而且重量也几乎完全相同。麦克维似乎很可能看到了政府为执行反枪支法而对韦科大卫教派进行的突袭与电影中描述的枪支突袭之间的相似之处。 特纳日记麦克维对他所认为的韦科枪支拥有者毫无根据的暴力袭击做出了回应，就像皮尔斯书中的主人公厄尔·特纳对虚构的联邦特工对枪支拥有者的严厉镇压做出的回应一样。政府。[10]关于从小说中塑造一个人的生活的现象的讨论，请参阅杰伊·马丁（Jay Martin）， 这次我是谁？ （纽约：诺顿，1988年）。

反诽谤联盟消息人士称，就在爆炸发生前几天，麦克维向佛罗里达州的妹妹邮寄了一个信封，其中包含封面副本和精选页面 特纳日记。他附上了一张便条，说她一定要阅读封底。后盖上 特纳日记 顶部用粗体黑色字母写着一个问题：“当他们来拿走你的枪时，你会做什么？”然后答案是：“爱国者通过破坏和恐怖活动进行反击。”当麦克维的姐姐得知她哥哥因爆炸事件被捕时，她烧毁了信封里的东西。[11]11. 参见斯特恩，第 118 页。 XNUMX. 另外，反诽谤联盟， 仇恨的爆发：民族联盟日益增长的危险，1998 年报告，可在 ADL 网站上在线获取。

顺便说一句，麦克维爆炸案的同谋特里·尼科尔斯也可能受到了威廉·皮尔斯著作的影响。联邦特工发现了皮尔斯另一本小说的副本， Hunter，在尼科尔斯的家里。他们在房子里看到了几本书。 Hunter写于 1980 世纪 XNUMX 年代末，是皮尔斯的后续作品 特纳日记。它讲述了奥斯卡·耶格尔的功绩，他试图通过杀害跨种族夫妇和犹太人来“净化”美国。[12]反诽谤联盟。

爆炸发生前几周，麦克维住在亚利桑那州金曼附近 66 号公路旁的帝国酒店。多个消息来源报道称，5 月 11 日至 XNUMX 日期间，麦克维向一个名为“国家联盟”的激进右翼组织运营的信息中心拨打了 XNUMX 次电话。全国联盟主席是威廉·皮尔斯。据称，这七个电话中有两个是转接到皮尔斯在西弗吉尼亚州总部的未公开号码上的。[13]哈姆，p。 198.

特纳日记 这是检方在丹佛麦克维审判中提出的第一个证据。在审判期间，麦克维的几位朋友告诉法庭，他已将这本书的副本邮寄给他们，并附上一张鼓励他们阅读的便条。其中一位名叫凯尔·克劳斯（Kyle Kraus）的人，是麦克维军队时代的好友，他作证说，当他得知俄克拉荷马城爆炸事件时，他立即想起了书中的场景，并抓起麦克维寄给他的副本，带到了当地的联邦调查局办公室。[14]反诽谤联盟。

麦克维第一次接触 特纳日记 当他在军队时，他在生存主义杂志的邮购部分看到了这本书的广告， 兵痞。麦克维订购了这本书，据当时他周围的人说，他满怀期待地等待着这本书的到来。据他的室友威廉·迪利报道，当这本书最终到达时，麦克维对它着迷了。 “他把它带到现场，连续读了三周，”迪利说。 “他说这本书真的很疯狂，并试图让我读它。”[15]哈姆，p。 144. 麦克维的另一位朋友布兰登·斯蒂奇说，麦克维读了又读这本书，并以经常将这本翻阅过的小平装书放在口袋里而闻名。[16]同上，第153页。
（哈姆，第 144 页。）

退役后，麦克维卖掉了 特纳日记 在周末的枪支展上，他的花费往往低于他自己的成本。其他枪展商人表示，这本书的内容就好像他的宗教信仰一样，而他正在寻找皈依者。 “大多数情况下，麦克维的热情来自于 特纳日记”一位与他有过交集的枪支收藏家后来说。 “他是最伟大的公关人员。他一直带着这本书。他在展会上卖掉了它。他在吊带背心的大口袋里放了几本。它们本来应该卖 10 美元，但他却以 5 美元的价格卖掉。”[17]17. 斯特恩，第 51 页。 192、XNUMX。

似乎 特纳日记 改变了蒂姆·麦克维的人生轨迹，也改变了俄克拉荷马城成千上万人的生活。从某种程度上说，俄克拉荷马城爆炸事件是一个令人难忘的事件，甚至，以我们现在尚不清楚的方式，这是一个重大事件，威廉·皮尔斯自行出版的小说已经成为美国历史的一部分。

24年1998月XNUMX日，B’nai B’rith反诽谤联盟发表了一份报告，题为 仇恨的爆发：民族联盟日益增长的危险.[18]反诽谤联盟。 ADL 的既定目的是通过消除仇恨、偏见和偏执的计划和服务来打击反犹太主义。这 仇恨的爆发 报告开始：

反诽谤联盟的一项新调查显示，新纳粹全国联盟 (NA) 是当今美国最危险的有组织仇恨团体。几年前，国民议会发现了一起虚构的事件，引起了全国的关注。 特纳日记北美领导人写的一部暴力和种族主义小说，可能被用作俄克拉荷马城爆炸案的模型。被定罪的炸弹袭击者蒂莫西·麦克维是本书的忠实读者 特纳日记，其中的爆炸场景令人毛骨悚然地让人想起 19 年 1995 月 1980 日的爆炸。这本书也是“教团”的蓝图，这是一个在 XNUMX 世纪 XNUMX 年代初通过抢劫和谋杀而声名鹊起的革命恐怖组织。组织的头目[罗伯特·杰·马修斯]是北美联盟的组织者。

如今，国家联盟再次崛起。在过去的几年里，包括谋杀、爆炸和抢劫在内的数十起暴力犯罪已被追踪到是国民党成员所为，或者似乎是受到该组织宣传的启发。与此同时，国家联盟的成员基础经历了戏剧性的增长，自 1992 年以来其数量增加了一倍多。该组织总部位于西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒附近，由前俄勒冈大学物理学教授和资深反犹太主义者 William L 领导。 。 刺穿。

全国联盟在全国各地拥有 16 个活跃的小组，估计有 1,000 名会员，还有数千名美国人收听其广播并浏览其网站，该联盟是美国最大、最活跃的新纳粹组织。该组织还在国外建立了重要的政治联系。过去三年中，有证据表明全国不少于 26 个州存在 NA 活动。该组织在俄亥俄州、佛罗里达州、密歇根州、纽约州、马里兰州、北卡罗来纳州、弗吉尼亚州和新墨西哥州最为活跃。

仇恨的爆发 他接着说，虽然其他极端主义团体只吸引一小部分追随者，但全国联盟成员的社会阶层和年龄差异很大，从年轻的光头党到中年专业人士。联盟成员被组织成由皮尔斯任命的协调员领导的地方单位，并且在大多数情况下定期举行会议。皮尔斯每年两次邀请 50 名联盟成员到西弗吉尼亚州总部参加周末会议。

ADL 的报告称，全国联盟的力量很大程度上归功于皮尔斯——报告称皮尔斯受过良好教育、专注且有组织性——以及他独裁的领导风格。皮尔斯的活动包括 美国持不同政见者之声，每周半小时的广播节目。报告指出，皮尔斯利用新闻中的话题作为跳板，进行充满仇恨的反犹太人、反黑人和反政府谩骂。 美国持不同政见者之声 北美和欧洲的大部分地区都可以通过短波以及阿肯色州、德克萨斯州、阿拉巴马州、新英格兰、佛罗里达州和加利福尼亚州部分地区的当地调幅广播电台收听广播。它们还可以从国家联盟网站下载书面和音频形式，并通过电子邮件发送给选定的个人，并在每月订阅出版物中重印 自由言论，并通过联盟的出版部门国家先锋图书公司以录音带的形式出售。皮尔斯的录音带 ADV 节目是国家先锋图书公司通过其广泛发行的目录销售的一系列激进右翼书籍和录音带和录像带之一。

除了每周的广播和图书销售活动外，皮尔斯还为会员制的国家联盟月刊通讯撰写文案。还有不定期出版的光泽杂志 、国家先锋队反诽谤联盟的报告称，这是试图将联盟的种族主义和反犹太主义议程理性化。曲高和寡的语气 国民先锋队 与其他极端主义团体的粗制滥造的宣传材料形成鲜明对比，并提高了民族联盟在报告中所说的“受过良好教育的偏执狂”中的吸引力。

仇恨的爆发 指出，除了蒂莫西·麦克维之外，其他凶手和恐怖分子似乎也受到了皮尔斯充满暴力的著作和声明的启发。在 1980 世纪 XNUMX 年代，一个自称为“Order”的团伙，以 XNUMX 年代的精锐准军事部队命名。 特纳日记， 进行了一系列犯罪活动，包括炸毁一座犹太教堂、谋杀一名犹太脱口秀主持人、制造假币以及在一次装甲车抢劫中抢劫超过 400 万美元。该组织的领导人罗伯特·马修斯是国家联盟的成员，也是联盟的招募人员，曾在该组织的一次全国大会上发表讲话。据报道，马修斯告诉人们，他决心成为一场反对体制的起义的催化剂，就像皮尔斯书中所描述的那样。

马修斯在枪战中被联邦调查局特工杀害，他已成为右翼边缘分子中的烈士和崇拜英雄，并成为其他追随他的人的榜样。 ADL 的报告引用了当时出版商 George Burdi 在他的光头党杂志中的声明 抵制 在歌颂民族联盟的过程中唤起马修斯的记忆。布尔迪说：“全国联盟显然是当今世界上最具前瞻性、最进步的种族主义组织，难怪罗伯特·马修斯如此全心全意地支持他们。”另一个例子，当局称，一个自称为雅利安共和军的白人至上主义组织，由彼得·兰根 (Peter Langan) 领导，在 1992 年至 1996 年间在中西部地区实施了 XNUMX 起银行抢劫和爆炸案。兰根赞扬了罗伯特·马修斯 (Robert Mathews)，并指示他的观众“学习来自鲍勃。”不出所料 特纳日记 是雅利安共和军的必读书目。

反诽谤联盟的报告列出了一些最近发生的犯罪行为，这些犯罪行为可能以某种方式与皮尔斯和国家联盟有关。他们之中：

• 1998 年 XNUMX 月，丹尼斯·麦吉芬和另外两人被指控密谋拥有和制造机关枪。联邦调查局特工作证说，麦吉芬和其他人受到了 特纳日记。他们计划建立“新秩序”，并谈到了轰炸州议会大厦和邮局以及用氰化物毒害公共供水系统等。
• 1997年，佛罗里达州温特帕克的民族联盟信徒托德·范比伯(Todd Vanbiber)承认非法制造和持有爆炸物罪，被判处六年半监禁。在 1997 年 XNUMX 月的量刑听证会上，一名狱友作证说，范比伯承认他计划对参加国庆节庆祝活动的非裔美国人使用炸弹。联邦对范比伯的投诉称，他在西弗吉尼亚州的住所与威廉·皮尔斯会面了两个小时，期间向全国联盟捐赠了 XNUMX 美元，并购买了价值 XNUMX 美元的文献。
• 1995 年 82 月，一对黑人夫妇在北卡罗来纳州布拉格堡附近被枪杀，检察官称这是出于种族动机的杀戮。第 XNUMX 空降师成员詹姆斯·伯迈斯特 (James Burmeister) 和马尔科姆·赖特 (Malcolm Wright) 被判犯有谋杀罪并被判处终身监禁。据报道，伯迈斯特和赖特阅读了国家联盟的宣传材料。在这些事件之前，国家联盟一直试图在布拉格堡的美国陆军人员中吸引成员。该组织的积极分子之一罗伯特·亨特（Robert Hunt）是该联盟的一名士兵和招募人员，他租用了一块广告牌，并用它来张贴该组织的广告和本地电话号码。
• 1996 年 1980 月，拉里·韦恩·舒梅克 (Larry Wayne Shoemaker) 在密西西比州杰克逊市杀害了一名非裔美国人，并打伤了七人。据他的前妻说，舒梅克第一次接触民族联盟的宣传是在 XNUMX 世纪 XNUMX 年代中期，当时他借 特纳日记 来自朋友。她说她的丈夫读了皮尔斯的小说后就不一样了。 “这对他来说就像是大开眼界，”她说。 “他身上有明显的不同。”舒梅克很快就开始订阅皮尔斯的月刊。

1999年冬季号 情报报告，由南方贫困法律中心（SPLC）出版，其中包括一篇题为“联盟及其盟友”的文章。[19]南方贫困法律中心，“联盟及其盟友”， 情报报告， 1999 年冬季。可在 SPLCENTER.ORG 在线获取 SLPC 的文章重点讨论了威廉·皮尔斯与欧洲政治极端分子建立的联系。南方贫困法律中心监测极端主义团体，并成功地对他们提起民事诉讼。 SPLC 最著名的成员是联合创始人兼首席法律顾问莫里斯·迪斯 (Morris Dees)。

SPLC 的文章将皮尔斯称为欧洲最知名的美国极右翼人物。报告指出，皮尔斯处于独特的地位，能够置身于欧洲激进右翼多年来分裂的竞争之外。 “这位前物理学教授在欧洲被视为所有派系都可以尊敬的人，这位传奇作家的两部小说[特纳日记 和 Hunter] 引发了过去 15 年来最暴力的美国国内恐怖袭击。”[20]同上。
（南方贫困法律中心，“联盟及其盟友”， 情报报告， 1999 年冬季。可在 SPLCENTER.ORG 在线获取） 文章援引皮尔斯的话说，“跨国界合作对于未来的进步，甚至可能是生存，将变得越来越重要。”[21]同上。
（南方贫困法律中心，“联盟及其盟友”， 情报报告， 1999 年冬季。可在 SPLCENTER.ORG 在线获取）

1997 年底，我给皮尔斯写了一封信，提出写一本关于他和他的想法的书的想法。我在信中说：

我不是在谈论任何授权的事情，也就是说，我明示或暗示地有为你打掩护、让你好看、推销你的工作。但与此同时，我的目的并不是妖魔化你，或者把你当作一个稻草人来服务于我自己的某些议程。我也不想玩学者经常玩的游戏（我是一名大学教授），那就是站在他们的学科之上，居高临下地批评他们，并在这个过程中让自己看起来很好。我真正想做的是关注你提出的问题、你肯定的想法以及你当前在你生活中发生的事件和环境下的活动，并尽可能客观地呈现它。无论发生什么，我都希望将你是谁、你是什么、你来自哪里，直接真实地呈现给读者。我对曝光或内部新闻不感兴趣。我感兴趣的是这种文化和社会的发展方向以及我们如何过我们的个人生活，以及你和你所代表的事物与此有关。[22]私人信件，罗伯特·格里芬 (Robert Griffin) 致威廉·皮尔斯 (William Pierce)，26 年 1997 月 XNUMX 日。

皮尔斯回信说：

你的想法很有趣。我不相信我迄今为止所取得的成就值得写成传记——尽管我一直在努力获得更多的功绩。从实际的角度来看，如果你成功地出版了我的传记，而且这不是一场恶作剧，那应该会有帮助。尽管你可能会受到出版商的压力，要求你制作一本符合我和我的信息的某种刻板印象的书。不管怎样，这是一个我愿意和你讨论的项目。[23]私人信件，威廉·皮尔斯 (William Pierce) 致罗伯特·格里芬 (Robert Griffin)，4 年 1997 月 XNUMX 日。

我回信给皮尔斯说，我不打算写一本全面、详细的传记，引入多种来源和观点等等。相反，我想到的是类似于肖像拍摄对象和艺术家之间发生的事情。也就是说，这本书本质上是关于他和我的：他向我展示自己的方式以及我理解和呈现这种展示的方式。我说我想听他谈论他的成长生活以及他作为成年人所做的事情。我想了解社会环境以及对他产生影响的人、经历和想法。我想熟悉那些对他产生影响的书——如果我没有读过的话我会读它们——看看我是否能了解为什么它们对他产生了如此大的影响。我想看看他的公共生活和私人生活是如何相互影响的。可以这么说，我想做这些事情是为了描绘他的形象。因此，肖像比传记更能准确地表达我的想法。

而且，说实话，我在信中说过，我并不是要对你进行攻击。我无意写一本批判性的书；相反，我想成为一个工具，让读者有机会仔细观察你，并自己决定他们所看到的内容。我告诉皮尔斯，我不会通过给他贴上负面标签——新纳粹、反犹太主义、偏执狂、仇恨者——来歪曲或引导人们对他的印象。然而，他必须明白，在听完他所说的并回顾他一生所做的事情之后，读者很可能会认为这些标签确实适合他。至于出版商敦促我让他陷入某种刻板印象——他提到过这种可能性——我告诉他我不会为任何人扭曲现实。

我告诉皮尔斯，我想亲自见见他，更多地讨论这个项目，看看我们两个是否可以合作。我说我认为彼此相处几个小时应该能让我们很好地了解是否应该继续探索这个想法。皮尔斯说他没问题，我就去西弗吉尼亚州看他。那是 1997 年的秋天。下午，我们在他位于国家联盟总部大楼的办公室里聊了两个小时，办公室位于他占地三百四十六英亩的土地上。基本上我们就认识了。他问我在我任教的大学里的情况如何，我们讨论了一段时间大学政治。我认为会议进行得很顺利。皮尔斯看起来很开放，没有受到威胁——我原以为他会更加谨慎，这是可以理解的——而且他很友善，也很开朗。第一次会议结束时，我们决定我应该回来并在酒店度过一个完整的工作日。

几个月后——那是 1998 年初——我回来了，皮尔斯和我连续聊了 XNUMX 个小时。我们两人之间的融洽关系正在建立，我相信，他对我的信任，也相信我为这本书的写作工作带来了足够的能力和承诺。我在我们漫长的谈话中做了笔记，然后写下了我的回忆和印象，但我发现我错过了皮尔斯所说的很多内容。我发誓，从那时起我就拥有一台录音机。一天结束时，皮尔斯邀请我留下来与他和他的妻子艾琳娜共进晚餐，所以我见到了她，并看到了他们在距离总部大楼约 XNUMX 码的山上共用的拖车。

大约一个月后，我回来度周末。那时，我提议暑假期间在酒店花一个月的时间来写这本书。我告诉皮尔斯，我想在那段时间对他进行一系列录音采访。我说每周三次两小时的课程就足够了。另外，我还想查阅材料——书籍、磁带、信件、论文等等。我只是想大致了解这处房产上发生的事情，感受一下这个地方和住在那里的人。皮尔斯说那很好，1998 年 1999 月中旬到 XNUMX 月中旬，我和皮尔斯的一位助手住在一起，他是一位前商学院教授，​​名叫鲍勃·德马莱斯 (Bob DeMarais)。从那时起，我就和皮尔斯保持着联系。 XNUMX 年 XNUMX 月，我在德国慕尼黑与他一起度过了四天，当时他前往那里在国家民主党的一次集会上发表演讲。我想通过这一切我已经非常了解他了。

我问自己为什么皮尔斯同意继续推进这本书的项目，事实上他一直是最合作的。我认为皮尔斯同意这本书的主要原因是他认为这是一个被主流读者认识的机会。他确信，在他没有被忽视的情况下，他和他的想法已经被扭曲，以服务于那些反对他的人的目的。另外，我认为我是一名大学教授这一事实对他很有吸引力。他向我表达了学术界不关注他的沮丧。我相信他希望我所写的东西能够传达给大学里的人们，包括教师和学生，并有助于他和他的信息被社会的这一阶层更认真地考虑。而且，我相信我是一名学者这一事实在另一个方面也有所帮助。皮尔斯曾经是一名物理学教授，我和他的个人风格很兼容。我是个书呆子，很容易被想法所吸引，他也是如此。简而言之，我们关系很好，而且我认为与我这样的人建立关系对他来说是有个人回报的。最后，我相信我满足了他需要有人谈论他的生活的需求。对于我们所有人来说，拥有一位真正感兴趣的听众是一次有益的经历，他真正关心我们小时候的情况、我们刚刚开始职业生涯时发生的事情、我们如何看待今天的事情，以及很快。有一个真正想从我们那里听到更多信息并且不做出判断或将话题带到自己身上的人是值得的。随着日子一天天过去，我注意到皮尔斯似乎很期待我们的会议，会议时间是在他漫长的工作日之后的晚上 7:00 到 9:00。在他的建议下，我们连续晚上交谈，而不是我最初设想的每周三次。

至于我想从与皮尔斯的接触中得到什么，我正在寻找一种以整体的、综合的方式、以一种平易近人且有趣的方式处理美国文化和社会的方法，而皮尔斯在我看来是一个这样做的好工具。皮尔斯关心这一切以及一切如何结合在一起——历史、哲学、政治、经济、媒体、教育、男女身份和关系、育儿实践以及休闲方式——这为我提供了广阔的画布，包容性参考系，我想要。我不认为皮尔斯从意识形态极端的立场来处理这些问题是一个缺点，因为更好地理解美国生活核心正在发生的事情的方法之一是我真正想做的，是将它与最外层边缘发生的事情进行对比。

我在这个项目上投入时间和精力的第二个原因是，我认为如果我报告我与皮尔斯的经历，我可以对其他人有所帮助。我认为，我们必须了解敌人，也就是说，我认为共识是，没有人比威廉·皮尔斯更具威胁性的国内敌人。我有机会近距离接触并了解皮尔斯的想法和行为以及他的成因——像皮尔斯这样的人是如何形成的？我认为，这是一个机会，让人们可以听到这个人的亲身经历，并通过他的眼睛观察世界。如果我们要与像皮尔斯这样的人打交道，那么如果我们了解他们，就会有很大帮助。

对我来说，第三个动机随着时间的推移而发展：我发现皮尔斯是一个绝对迷人的角色，他的故事是一个故事的鲸鱼。除了皮尔斯之外，在编写这本书的过程中，我还遇到了许多其他迷人的人物，其中包括乔治·林肯·洛克威尔、罗伯特·劳埃德、雷维洛·P·奥利弗、弗朗西斯·帕克·约基、萨维特里·德维、伊丽莎白·迪林、鲍勃·马修斯、和威廉·盖利·辛普森。这些角色和他们的世界对我来说都是全新的，在我写这本书的一年半里，我享受到了一部精彩的、真实的电影。我发现仅此一点就足以让我继续前进。

威廉·皮尔斯自 1985 年以来一直居住在西弗吉尼亚州的波卡洪塔斯县，该县是该州东南部的山区。波卡洪塔斯县到处都是树木：黑胡桃木、山核桃木、橡树、东方杨树、苹果树、梨树、红枫树、糖枫树和七叶树。波卡洪塔斯县的形状像一个向右倾斜的保龄球瓶，从上到下约五十英里，最宽处三十英里。该县九百平方英里的土地上居住着九千人。县城和最大城镇是马林顿，人口一千一百人。皮尔斯的土地位于米尔角（人口五十），位于“保龄球瓶”底部的中心。他的三百四十六英亩土地位于大云杉山丘一侧，位于黑山和石中心山之间。

在我第一次拜访他之前，皮尔斯在给我的一封信中这样描述了他住的地方：

该地区地处“人迹罕至”的地方，除了小农场外没有任何工业，没有交通枢纽，没有流动人口，交通、污染或犯罪也很少。虽然这里多山而且非常美丽，但该县北部除了滑雪小屋外缺乏旅游设施，导致游客和度假者的人数很少。除了四五个由疯狂的基督教犯罪团体输入的非白人之外，人口全部是白人，而且人口稀少。早期的定居者是苏格兰裔爱尔兰人、德国人、荷兰人和英国人，电话簿上主要是少数几个姓氏——麦克尼尔、夏普、普里特。尽管电视和教堂（不幸的是，它们在这里有很大的影响力）正在尽最大努力将新世界秩序带到波卡洪塔斯县，但它在抵制外界影响方面却极其保守。[24]私人信件，威廉·皮尔斯 (William Pierce) 致罗伯特·格里芬 (Robert Griffin)，7 年 1997 月 XNUMX 日。

1997 年秋天，我去见了皮尔斯，看看他住在哪里。我飞往弗吉尼亚州罗阿诺克，租了一辆车，出发两个半小时车程到达米尔角——虽然路途遥远，但罗阿诺克是最近的主要机场。我于下午 1:00 左右到达西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒（人口 XNUMX）。希尔斯伯勒 (Hillsboro) 是皮尔斯 (Pierce) 领取邮件的地方，距离米尔角 (Mill Point) 约三英里。我来得早——我已经告诉皮尔斯我两点钟到——而且肚子饿了，所以我在希尔斯伯勒的乡村路咖啡馆停了下来。我在咖啡馆停车的地方旁边有一块饱经风霜的白色金属标牌，上面写着黑色字体：

希尔斯伯勒

1863 年德鲁普山战役之前和袭击弗吉尼亚州塞勒姆之后，W. W. 艾夫里尔 (W. W. Averell) 将军曾在此扎营。1760 年代，约翰·麦克尼尔 (John McNeel) 和金尼森家族在附近建立了定居点。赛珍珠的出生地。

赛珍珠是一位诺贝尔奖获得者，以其以中国为背景的书而闻名， 好地球。

Country Roads Cafe 的晚餐最高价格为 5.45 美元；我花了 2.85 美元吃了一份鸡肉沙拉三明治。吃完饭后，我驱车沿路行驶三英里到达米尔角。我按照皮尔斯发给我的指示，按照他的指示，在红砖房处右转离开国道，进入土路。我把车停了一会儿，俯视着单车道土路，皮尔斯说我要沿着这条单车道行驶大约十分之八英里，然后才能到达他的家。路边有未上漆的木柱，高约四英尺，相距十五英尺，柱间挂着铁丝网。右边是一百码高的草丛，然后是树木。在左边，经过大约三百码的草地后，土地升起，变成了树木覆盖的小丘。前方大约五百码处，土路向右拐，我看不到从那里往哪里走。视野中没有人或动物。

“好吧，就这样吧。”我对自己说，然后就上路了。

土路充满了颠簸和车辙，当我开着租来的车穿过很快看起来像是障碍物的道路时，我的时速可能不会超过三英里。我尽量小心，但还是刮到了车底好几次。很快，我的右边就没有草了；树长到了路边。令我松了口气的是，大约四分之一英里后，道路变得平坦了。在我的左边，我看到一个旧的红色谷仓，旁边有一个筒仓，白色的油漆剥落了。谷仓和筒仓周围有二十匹左右的浅棕色微型马正在吃草。我回想起当我还是个孩子的时候，我经常骑着那种我叫它们的小马——我不确定它们应该叫什么——在狂欢节上，这些小马曾经在一个街区的一大片空地上举办。来自我住在明尼苏达州圣保罗的地方。我没有看到周围有什么人，只有几匹小马。

当我沿着土路行驶时，左边的树木开始靠近，与右边的树木相匹配。前面，两边离马路都很近，以至于在马路上方汇合在一起，挡住了阳光。我感觉自己好像正驶入一条黑暗的隧道。树冠时不时地持续了大约四分之一英里，然后头顶上的树木退去，阳光再次照耀，前面是皮尔斯告诉我会在那里的红色大门。大门高约五尺，挡住了道路。它有六根横管，上下四根。顶部中心是一个黑色金属小标牌，上面写着白色字样“禁止侵入”。

门是关着的，但皮尔斯说门会解锁，我应该打开它并开车进入房产。我停下车，下了车，然后将车门朝我的方向转动，打开了车门。我对自己开的租车不太熟悉，所以回到车里后，我低头看了看点火钥匙在哪里，然后打开了发动机。当我回头看看路并继续前进时，一张微笑的、留着胡须的山人脸充满了打开的驾驶员侧车窗。我吃了一惊；我没有看到或听到有人靠近这辆车。

山人依然微笑着问我叫什么名字。

“罗伯特·格里夫——鲍勃·格里芬，”我回答道。在自我介绍时，我一直面临着这样的困境。我是罗伯特还是鲍勃？

“博士。皮尔斯正在等你。一直走到山顶，你就会看到右边有一个停车的地方。”后来我才知道那是弗雷德·斯特里德。

我在土路上沿着一个相当陡的斜坡行驶了几百英尺。当我接近山顶时，我看到右手边有一座巨大的建筑。就在我的正前方，大楼前的停车场里，一个高高瘦瘦的身影独自站立着。他挥动手臂，示意我向右转，面向大楼停车。我照做了，下了车，站在开着的驾驶员侧车门旁边。那人脸上挂着灿烂的笑容，上前伸出手说道：“我是威廉·皮尔斯。我一直在等你。”

皮尔斯在我看来大约六十岁。他比我高几英寸，也就是说他大约有 6 英尺 3 英寸左右。他的头很大，头发灰白、稀疏，按照传统的剪法，头发从左侧分开。他的头发足够长，可以在脑后卷曲。他有点驼背，头埋在肩膀上，向前挺着。他脸上最引人注目的是他的大额头和嘴巴。他的脸上没有皱纹，鼻子挺直，不起眼，小耳朵有些突出。他戴着保守的塑料框眼镜，厚厚的镜片后面有一双蓝色的眼睛。

那天，皮尔斯穿着一件牛仔裤夹克，外面穿着一件深蓝色 T 恤，T 恤的口袋里有一张白色索引卡。他褪色的蓝色牛仔裤直接从后面垂下来，就像年长的男人那样。他穿着棕色工作靴。他的腰间系着一条手枪带。一把装在枪套里的武器在他的右侧，更多的是在后面而不是在侧面。武器不可见，因为他把 T 恤拉到了上面。

皮尔斯的基本外表又长又瘦，但当我与他握手时，我被他卷起的夹克袖子下露出的手和前臂的大小和力量所吸引。他的握手坚定而自信。我读到过，正如人们所说，皮尔斯“缺乏活力”。这当然不是我的印象。他有一种重要人物的气质，而且是那种非常能填补他们所处空间的人。

“进来吧，”皮尔斯一边说，一边用左手示意我右边的大楼。我转身，第一次清楚地看到了国联总部大楼。它有两层楼高，大约六十英尺宽。它由带有垂直凹槽的米色钢壳覆盖。建筑中央是深棕色的双扇门，上面装饰着黄色的小方块。一楼门的两侧各有一扇窗户，二楼也有一个类似的窗户。一楼和二楼两侧的窗户都由一条从建筑物顶部一直延伸到地面的窗户宽的深棕色带子连接在一起。屋顶的边缘为深棕色，并略微倾斜以应对降水。

该建筑最显着的特征是门上方附有一个十英尺高的深棕色符号。我分不清它是金属的还是木头的。它看起来有点像基督教的十字架，只是横杆更长，而且不是从九点钟直接穿过到三点钟，而是好像它在中点被切割，两块仍然附着在十字架上。垂直条向上指向十点三十分和一点三十分。后来我才知道，这叫做生命符文，是国盟的标志。我记得第一次看到这张生命符文图像时，我感到一种激动的感觉，它是如此巨大和具有统治力。尤其是在这种远离一切的环境中，一切都显得陌生、陌生。 美丽新世界 or 1984.

距离皮尔斯和我所站的地方，总部大楼大约有四十五英尺远，位于一条六英尺宽的小路的尽头，小路的尽头似乎是非常仔细地平整的水泥砌成的岩石。走道两侧都是修剪整齐的草坪。树木环绕着建筑物的侧面和背面。在这个万里无云的秋日里，建筑和绿化呈现出一幅明信片般的迷人画卷。

皮尔斯和我并肩走在小路上，穿过双扇门，进入一个小前厅。前方左右两侧都是办公室，门开着。皮尔斯指着左边的那个说：“那是鲍勃·德马莱斯工作的地方。” （他发音为 De-Mars。） 一位留着小胡子的中年男子从电脑上抬起头，挥手打招呼。 “鲍勃处理联盟的所有业务事务，”皮尔斯说。 “稍后我会把他介绍给你。”我注意到皮尔斯有一点南方口音。

右边的办公室里没有人，皮尔斯没有对办公室或办公室的主人说任何话。后来我才知道那是罗恩·麦考斯基的办公室。罗恩在皮尔斯旗下国家先锋图书公司的图书发行部门工作。罗恩来自加利福尼亚州，过去曾担任职业魔术师。他仍然在孩子们的生日聚会上表演魔术。

正前方是一间会议室，看上去能容纳七十五到一百人。房间里很暗，因为两边都有房间——左边是皮尔斯的大图书馆，右边是卫生间和储藏室——因此没有阳光照进来。会议室里散落着六八张折叠式的书架。椅子。房间的中间，左边的墙边有一架钢琴。房间的尽头有一个八英寸或十英寸高的木立柱，大约八英尺见方，上面有一个讲台。生命符文符号贴在讲台上。

当皮尔斯和我离开会议室并继续朝大楼后面走时，我们经过左边的楼梯，通向二楼。后来我才知道，二楼是皮尔斯邮购书籍的存放区。二楼还有一个录音室，他在那里录制每周的广播节目。此外，还有一个小房间，里面有他的电子设备——他称之为玩具。皮尔斯拥有物理学博士学位，这个房间是他逃离这一切的地方。二楼的另一件事是：后墙旁边有一台电视机，周围是书箱。我相信这是该地产上唯一的一个。事实证明，皮尔斯和他周围的人在电视上表现不佳，认为电视是对手手中扭曲现实和扭曲思想的力量。皮尔斯不打算接收电缆，而唯一到达这个偏远地区的电视台是 NBC 附属电视台——勉强到达，画面是雪天的，不符合彩色的条件。皮尔斯是 NBC 晚间新闻的忠实观众。据我所知，这就是他除了朋友和粉丝发给他的录像带之外看电视的程度，而且我不相信他周围的人根本不看电视。

我和皮尔斯经过通往二楼的楼梯后，就到达了大楼的后面。右边是一间办公室，一位女士坐在电脑前的办公桌前。我没有仔细看她，皮尔斯也没有介绍我。她戴着眼镜，看起来四十岁左右，正处于人生中不年轻也不老的年纪。在我转身离开之前，我瞥见了一棵巨大的悬垂植物。

左边是皮尔斯的办公室。我先进去，他从我左边经过，走到他面向右边的木桌旁坐下。在办公室里，我注意到的第一件事是皮尔斯办公桌上直立的电脑机箱上坐着一只猫。我猜想那只猫在那里是因为天气很暖和。这种安排把猫支撑得很高，所以对我来说，它突然与一只长相奇特、体型较小的短毛猫面对面——一只蓝点暹罗猫，这是我以前从未见过的品种。我刚刚见到哈德利，皮尔斯的忠实伙伴。当皮尔斯早上（通常是 8:30 左右）来到总部时，哈德利骑在皮尔斯的肩膀上，整天陪在他身边，当皮尔斯晚上 9:00 或 9:30 返回拖车时，哈德利骑在皮尔斯的肩膀上。

皮尔斯的小办公室挤满了人。除了电脑外，还有复印机和传真机。他的桌子后面是一个书柜，里面塞满了书。一排面向桌子的椅子靠墙立着，在椅子和桌子之间留下了一条非常狭窄的通道。由于皮尔斯坐在他桌子后面，我决定坐在其中一张椅子上，但椅子上堆满了盒子、书籍、杂志、文件和录像带。同样的一堆东西放在门对面墙上的桌子上，皮尔斯坐在桌子旁边的右边的架子上，桌子本身，还有地板上。皮尔斯可能感觉到我对他办公室里的混乱感到有些惊讶，因为在他坐下后，我把一把椅子上的东西推到一边以便坐下，他说：“我必须做点什么关于这个办公室，把它清理干净。这已经失控了。”

我觉得这不是我该说的话，所以我没有回答。

皮尔斯坐在他的办公桌上，我坐在他左边角落的一把椅子上。我们相视一笑。

“我可以给你倒杯茶吗？”他问。

“那就好，”我回答道。

皮尔斯翻找了一秒钟，然后说：“我得去另一个房间拿一个茶包，”然后站了起来。当他绕过办公桌准备出去时，我在大厅对面的办公室里工作的那位女士走了进来，告诉他刚收到一封电子邮件。她简短地谈了一下——我没有接听。她说了什么——然后把它递给了他。这时皮尔斯回头看着我说：“这是林恩·希尔。”然后他说：“林恩，这是鲍勃·格里芬。他是一位来自佛蒙特州的教授。”

林恩以最快的速度朝我的方向看了一眼——我不认为她真的看到了我——然后简短地打了个招呼，然后就回去干她的事了，她站在皮尔斯旁边，似乎在监视着他，而他正在读她的信息。 d 刚刚给了他。

伊芙琳·希尔（Evelyn Hill）——我对她的了解还不够深，无法称呼她为“林恩”（Lynn）——身高约 5 英尺 7 英寸，棕色头发在脑后盘成发髻，戴着商务风格的黑框眼镜，体重可能比她重 1996 磅左右比她想成为的还要多。与穿着 T 恤和牛仔裤的皮尔斯相反，伊芙琳那天戴着耳环、穿着白色纽扣棉质衬衫和蓝色裙子，据我所知，这是她的典型着装。伊芙琳说话声音很大，态度强硬、严肃、干脆。她让我想起了一位严格的“老处女”——这是我们当时用的词，意思是未婚——我在小学时有一个老师，她吓坏了我，但我很怀念她，因为她教了我一些东西。伊芙琳 (Evelyn) 拥有药学博士学位，在 XNUMX 年与皮尔斯 (Pierce) 一起工作之前，她曾在华盛顿州担任药剂师。

为了阅读伊芙琳给他的信息，皮尔斯把纸拉到离眼睛大约五英寸的地方。他把头向后仰，低头看着报纸，读着读着，他的嘴张得大大的。事实证明，皮尔斯的眼睛很不好。

皮尔斯读完这条信息后，离开办公室去拿茶包时与伊芙琳交谈。我感觉到这是平等之间的交流，皮尔斯认真对待伊芙琳。我对伊芙琳的第一印象，在我和皮尔斯一起度过的这段时间里并没有改变，是她不会在社交方面领先联盟，也不会费心去尝试，但她非常有能力和生产力。

皮尔斯不在的时候，皮尔斯的办公室里就只有哈德利和我。哈德利一动不动地侧躺着，抬起头，完全没有注意到我。我环视了办公室一圈。我旁边的椅子上有一本杂志 刑事政治。皮尔斯桌子后面的书柜里有很多旧书。有一个是关于古代斯巴达人的，我看到了十九世纪德国哲学家弗里德里希·尼采的一对，还有 巴特利特的熟悉的语录 和 布莱克法律词典。墙上挂着一幅传统风格的版画，由十九世纪英国画家约翰·康斯特布尔创作的《老磨坊》。还有一张镶框的测量员的地​​产地图。我注意到这块土地是以宇宙神教会的名义，而不是皮尔斯或国家联盟的。我在心里记下了向皮尔斯询问这座宇宙神教会的情况。墙上的另一件事是一张限量版印刷品，上面画着一男一女以新古典主义姿势交织在一起。它的签名是艺术家阿诺·布雷克 (Arno Breker)。布雷克主要以雕塑家的身份而闻名，是第三帝国时期阿道夫·希特勒的最爱之一。布雷克在那段时间收到了许多雕塑人物雕像的委托，其中一些人物雕像尺寸巨大，用于装饰德国建筑物和公共场所。布雷克一直活到 1990 世纪 XNUMX 年代初。

皮尔斯拿着茶包回来泡了茶，我们聊了几个小时。皮尔斯不喜欢闲聊（“你的航班坠落得怎么样？”等等）。他很快就做到了。他知道我从事教育领域和大学教员工作，他想谈论这些领域。在我们的谈话过程中，他指出，在他看来，大学教育以及中小学教育几乎已经被多元文化主义者和女权主义者所接管。他说，他的印象是，世界上一些最胆怯的人都在大学教员中。皮尔斯说，他们可能不喜欢正在发生的事情，但他们没有勇气反抗已经控制了这个地方的帮派。他断言，他们被大学里存在的恐吓气氛吓倒了。

当皮尔斯与我分享他的观点时，他卓越的智慧显露出来。在大学工作时，我周围都是一些非常聪明的人。我想，一接触到一个人，我就知道了一个好人的心思。第一天让我惊讶的是，他们的精神并不比皮尔斯敏锐。但皮尔斯是否拥有顶尖的智力是没有争议的，至少在我看来是这样。

除了皮尔斯的智慧之外，我开始意识到三个在某些方面截然不同的个人特征。

首先是南方贵族皮尔斯。皮尔斯身上有一种绅士风度。他亲切、礼貌、正式、内向。他散发出一种明显的低调优越感。皮尔斯对此并不咄咄逼人——贵族们并不咄咄逼人——但他比你强一点。作为贵族气质的一部分，Pierce 具有 1940 世纪 XNUMX 年代的品质。我可以想象当年的大学教授都是他这个样子。他的外表和举止让我想起了一些我看过的关于乔治·马歇尔将军的新闻片片段，他是二战期间美国陆军参谋长，后来担任国务卿。皮尔斯在弗吉尼亚州长大，马歇尔虽然出生在宾夕法尼亚州，但在弗吉尼亚上大学并成年后住在那里。

但话又说回来，在某些方面他并不符合贵族的范畴。当我想到贵族类型时，我想象的是一个超然且相当伟大的人，以及一个对一切都过度考虑和谨慎的人。那不是皮尔斯。皮尔斯往往脚踏实地、充满活力，对自己的言行非常投入。而且，他经常很谦虚，我不认为这与南方贵族的形象有关。此外，皮尔斯身上还带有一种啤酒广告般的独特品质，与他的内敛和有点疏离的态度并存。皮尔斯喜欢讲故事，他轻松幽默、异想天开又严肃。皮尔斯也有强硬、粗糙的一面，同时也有礼貌的绅士农民的一面。皮尔斯一家在父亲去世后搬到另一个州与亲戚住在一起后，家庭陷入了困境。皮尔斯不得不自力更生 蝇 军校环境。皮尔斯从小就必须学会在冷漠和充满敌意的世界中照顾自己。皮尔斯曾经告诉我，他正处于一场冲突中，正准备将某人推出五楼的窗户，但对方却退缩了。 （这是在华盛顿特区。皮尔斯正在分发他的一些政治材料，一名黑人表示反对并对他进行了人身威胁。）

当我在皮尔斯身边时，我发现了他的第三个特点：一种具有威胁性的品质。皮尔斯让我有些不安。他内心似乎有一种压力，某种东西在表面之下酝酿着，也许是愤怒。我在他身上感受到了坚硬、冷酷和潜在的暴力。根据我对他的著作的了解，以及对他的生活的了解，以及其中有多少是真实存在的，我无法确定我将其中的多少投射到了他身上。但无论它来自哪里，我从第一天起就经历了它，它足够强烈，足以促使我在他身边时思考，“我不会把任何事情放过这个人。”

“作为一名大学本科生，”皮尔斯告诉我，“我一直担心自己的人生是否做了正确的事。我当时走的路真的想成为一名物理学家吗？我问自己的问题是，一个人如何决定他一生中最重要的事情是什么？他应该当老师吗？战士？医生？诗人？画家？显然，成为其中一些事情是你无法控制的。如果你不能画直线，那么尝试成为一名画家是没有意义的，如果你不能用这种媒介表达自己，那么尝试成为一名诗人是没有意义的。但这个问题确实不断重复出现，并伴随着一些必然的问题，例如：您使用哪一套标准来判断什么是正确的课程？一个人一生中要完成什么重要的事情？我知道我想做一些重要的事情。我从很小的时候就意识到自己的死亡，所以在我看来，我不应该浪费生命去做那些并不真正重要的事情。我不想在临终前想着：‘我搞砸了；我已经搞砸了；我已经搞砸了。我只有一种生活，但我没有做我应该做的事情。”

“虽然我还没有一个明确的参考框架，但当我 [1962 年] 到俄勒冈州立大学担任物理学教授时，我的脑海里就已经有了一个想法，我想要回答这些问题，并根据这些问题来指导我的生活。关于我得到的答案。我开始做更多的一般性阅读——在我没有时间之前，我所有的科学课程和活动——渐渐地，关于生活中重要的事情开始在我的脑海中形成。这是一个将我从所读内容中获得的教义具体化、精炼、学习如何更连贯地表达它们并找到例证它们的方法的过程。

“帮助我找到方向的一件事是我 1955 年左右在加州理工学院第一次看到的一部剧——人与超人。这部剧的第三幕是最让我感动的。它表达了一个人不应该压抑自己的想法。他应该全力以赴地为生命力服务。我买了一套留声机唱片，里面就有这个表演。我记得，它有查尔斯·劳顿、查尔斯·博耶、艾格尼丝·莫尔黑德和塞德里克·哈德威克——做得很好。唐望的阐述引起了我的共鸣。我一遍又一遍地听那组唱片，让它真正融入其中。进化宇宙的想法让我觉得这是真的，随着自我意识的不断进化，哲学家的大脑是最高的。为宇宙认识自身而开发的工具。我觉得我明白了Shaw的意思。随着时间的推移，我详细阐述了这个想法——我把它称为宇宙神论——并在 1970 世纪 XNUMX 年代的一系列演讲中对其进行了讨论。”

我获得了一份副本 人与超人，皮尔斯提到的剧本，并阅读了它。[28]萧伯纳（George Bernard Shaw）， 人与超人：喜剧与哲学 （纽约：企鹅出版社，1981 年，原版出版。1903 年）。 该剧于 1905 年在伦敦首演，此后一直是剧院的主要节目。巧合的是，当我和皮尔斯谈论这件事时，这部剧的成功演出即将在华盛顿结束，我能够在剧目结束前从西弗吉尼亚州开车过来观看演出。

人与超人 由著名的谈话家、批评家、讽刺家、评论家和剧作家萧伯纳撰写。肖于 1856 年出生于都柏林，于 1950 年去世。 人与超人 这部剧很长，大约三个半小时。通常，第三幕作为一个单独的作品进行表演，称为 唐璜在地狱，这就是皮尔斯在唱片中听到的内容。

读完并看过这部剧后，我很清楚这部特别的剧为何如此激发了皮尔斯当时生活中的想象力。该剧探讨的核心问题正是皮尔斯本人所面临的问题：一个人一生中最重要的事情是什么？这个问题不仅与皮尔斯当时的生活相关，肖通过这部戏给出的答案对皮尔斯也有很大的吸引力，那就是全力以赴成为“自然的力量”。肖在该剧出版版本的序言中写道：

这是生命中真正的乐趣，被用来实现你自己认可的强大目标；在你被扔进废品堆之前就已经彻底疲惫不堪；成为自然的力量，而不是一个狂热自私的小家伙，充满疾病和不满，抱怨世界不会致力于让你快乐。生活中唯一真正的悲剧就是被有个人想法的人利用来达到你认为卑鄙的目的。[29]萧伯纳（George Bernard Shaw）， 人与超人：喜剧与哲学

（纽约，企鹅出版社，1957 年，原版出版。1903 年），第 32 页。

为一个伟大的目标而精疲力竭的想法正是这位加州聪明的年轻研究生一直在寻找的。

在第三幕中 人与超人故事的中心人物从伦敦的家出发，前往西班牙未开垦的山区度假。其中包括杰克·坦纳（以年轻的萧伯纳为原型？）、他潜在的恋人安·怀特菲尔德和安的监护人罗巴克·拉姆斯登。一行人一抵达西班牙，就遭到一群土匪的袭击，首领是门多萨。门多萨恰好是犹太人。正如门多萨所说，他领导的团伙的作用是“阻止汽车并确保更公平的财富分配”。门多萨告诉杰克和其他人，这伙强盗的目的是在允许他们继续上路之前索取一笔可观的赎金。杰克告诉门多萨，他同意这个想法，但双方决定，由于时间已经很晚，资金的转移最好等到早上。于是他们就都睡觉了。他们睡着了，杰克做了一个梦。几乎所有其余的表演——或者单独表演时的表演——都是杰克的梦想。

杰克的梦的背景是地狱，梦中的每个人都是我们以前在剧中见过的角色，但变成了另一个人。杰克是十五世纪的贵族唐璜。安成为 Doña Ana de Ulloa（简称安娜）。罗巴克是一座会说话的雕像。门多萨是魔鬼。这种梦境背景和角色阵容本质上是唐璜和魔鬼之间关于生活应该是什么以及哪个地方更好的争论，唐璜版本的天堂还是魔鬼版本的地狱。当对手谈论天堂和地狱时，很明显他们指的并不是来世“上面”或“下面”的地方或状态。他们都用天堂和地狱来比喻今生的存在方式。

唐望一开始就阐述了他的观点：地球上现在的情况就是地狱。这是大多数人的生活方式，而他想退出。 “在我想象的天堂里，”他宣称，“你生活和工作，而不是玩耍和假装。你面对事物本来的样子；除了魅力，你一无所有；你的坚定和你的危险就是你的荣耀。”[30]肖，1981 年，第 140 页。

唐璜到达天堂后会做什么？他会的 认为：“我希望最终摆脱谎言和对幸福的乏味、庸俗的追求，在沉思中度过我的亿万年。”唐望在天堂的时间不只是沉思，而是沉思。它是对生命的沉思（大写的L），或者随着行为的进行而被称为生命力。唐望向门多萨宣称：“正如你喜欢沉思美丽和快乐等浪漫的幻象，我也会喜欢沉思那些令我最感兴趣的事物：即生命：永远努力获得更大力量的力量反思自己。”[31]同上，第。 141。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。）

这里所说的生命到底是什么？正如唐璜所说，生命本身就是一个实体，是某种独立的存在。根据唐璜的说法，生命或生命力，这个实体，这个存在，有极其重要的目的：意识到自己，理解自己，实现自己，也就是说，成为它真正的最好版本。是。他提到生命的“不断努力不仅是为了维持自身，而且是为了实现越来越高的组织和更完整的自我意识。”[32]同上，第。 148。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。） 唐望将这些目标的完全实现称为“神性”的实现。[33]同上，第。 151。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。） 正如唐望所见，神格很可能不会在没有经过激烈的斗争的情况下到来。生命面临着极其强大的敌人：“死亡和堕落的力量”。[34]同上，第。 148。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。）

唐璜断言，生命的中心动力是创造出一种更优秀的人类。这就是生命的核心。唐璜在这里表达了一种进化论、达尔文主义的思想，即人类进化成比现在更高、更先进的东西的概念。唐璜认为，生命是一种力量，旨在创造“越来越高的个体，理想的个体，全能、全知、绝对正确，并且具有完全、无误的自我意识：简而言之，是一个神”。[35]同上，第。 149。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。） 唐·胡安将种族纳入其中，因为他肯定了“培育种族的伟大中心目的；哎呀，把它培育到现在被认为超人的高度；这个目标现在隐藏在爱情、浪漫、拘谨和挑剔的诡辩云彩中，将冲破成清晰的阳光。”[36]同上，第。 160。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。）

但如果生命力想要完成它的伟大使命，在史诗般的斗争中取得胜利，它就需要一些帮助，唐璜说。也就是说，它需要大脑来给它方向。 “它需要一个大脑，这种不可抗拒的力量，以免它因无知而抵制自己。”[37]同上，第。 140。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。） 后来他在该法案中说道：“对于生命来说，人类背后的力量，智力是必需的，因为没有它，他[生命力？男人？两者都？] 误入死亡。”[38]同上，第。 151。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。）

生命力从哪里获得它所需要的大脑呢？来自像唐璜这样沉思的、有哲理的人。这就是为什么他首先要离开地狱去天堂，与生命力建立更好的联系，并弄清楚它到底需要什么才能变得有自我意识和自我实现。唐璜不仅仅是提供所需的哲学家大脑，还旨在为生命力提供一些力量，以帮助其保持正轨并前进。唐望打算采取行动帮助生命力继续前进。

因此，唐璜赞扬了某种哲学家，他“在沉思中寻求发现世界的内在意志，在发明中寻求实现该意志的方法，并在行动中通过如此发现的方法来实现该意志。 ”[39]同上。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。） 他拥护一个能够超越物质世界看到生命真正目的的个人理想，这样他就可以为这个目的而努力，而不是“像目前那样通过设定短视的个人目标来阻碍和困惑它”。[40]同上。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。）

是什么阻止我们追求这一理想？根据唐璜的说法，这是我们自己缺乏勇气和对受人尊敬的关注。 “人为自己的行为给出了一切理由，除了一个，那就是他的懦弱，”他断言。 “所有文明都建立在他的怯懦和他卑鄙的驯服之上，他称之为可敬。”[41]同上，第。 145。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。） 然而，有一种方法可以克服这些个人局限性，那就是找到一个值得为之付出生命的想法：“人们永远不会真正克服恐惧，除非他们想象自己正在为实现一个普遍目标而奋斗——为一个想法而奋斗，”唐璜声明。这就是为什么服务生命力的想法在他眼中如此强大。它使人们能够过上他们本来会过的生活，如果他们不那么害怕，也不被别人对他们的看法所困扰的话。

魔鬼回应唐璜的断言，宣称自然（他对生命力的术语）实际上没有任何目的。唐璜反驳道，你错了，哲学家的大脑是大自然的飞行员，帮助它到达目的地。[42]同上，第。 169。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。） “正是你成功地把人们的注意力从他们的真正目的上引开了，”唐望指责魔鬼，“这在某种程度上与我的和你的相同，这为你赢得了‘诱惑者。事实上，他们正在按照你的意愿行事，或者更确切地说，随着你的意愿而随波逐流，而不是按照自己的意愿行事，这使得他们成为不舒服、虚伪、不安、做作、任性和可怜的生物。”[43]同上，第。 165。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。）

为了取代这种消极的情况，唐璜提供了他所说的积极的替代方案：一个拥有超越他个人需要和愿望的人生目标的个人。唐望树立了一个奉献一生服务生命力的人的形象。这是一个支持生命力认识自身并到达目的地的人。唐望说这就是一个人应该如何生活。

唐望的理想存在对安娜来说听起来有点古板和单调，她一直在听着两个人之间的交流。她问道：“胡安，天堂里除了沉思就没有别的东西了吗？”唐望回答说：“在天堂我不寻求其他快乐！有帮助生命向上奋斗的工作。想想它如何浪费和分散自己，如何为自己设置障碍，并在无知和盲目中毁灭自己。只要我能构想出比我自己更好的东西，我就不会轻松，除非我努力将它实现或为其扫清道路。这就是我生活的法则。这就是生命对更高层次的组织、更广泛、更深入、更强烈的自我意识和更清晰的自我理解的不断渴望的作用。正是这一目的的至高无上，才把对我的爱降低为一时的快乐，把艺术对我降低为仅仅是对我能力的教育，对我来说宗教降低了仅仅是懒惰的借口，因为它设立了一个看起来像神一样的神。看着这个世界，并说它很好，这违背了我通过眼睛观察世界并发现它可以改进的本能。我告诉你，在追求我自己的快乐、我自己的健康、我自己的财富时，我从来不知道幸福。把我交到她手里的不是对女人的爱，而是对她的爱。这是疲劳、疲惫。”[44]同上。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。）

唐璜演讲中的最后一句话暗示了这样一种观念：女人往往会妨碍男人在生活中必须做的事情。这是对女性冷漠的一个例子，在邵氏戏剧的这一幕中多次出现。其他例子：唐璜有一次说，“我拒绝了具有艺术家本质的浪漫男人……我告诉他，他的美崇拜、幸福追求和女人理想化作为一种​​生活哲学，不值得被抛弃。”[45]同上，第。 154。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。） 另一个例子，唐璜谈到浪漫的男人如何引导他“崇拜女人”。[46]同上，第。 152。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。） 在另一种情况下，他继续谈到我们（大概是指男人）如何“被欺骗并倾向于将光荣的爱视为最高的善，并通过光荣的爱来理解浪漫、美丽和幸福，因为拥有美丽、精致、精致、多情的女人。”[47]同上，第。 154。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。） 有一次安娜对唐璜说：“我和你一起去。”唐望回答说：“我能找到自己去天堂的路，安娜；不是你的。”[48]同上，第。 171。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。）

“我更愿意做自己的主人，而不是任何错误的宇宙力量的工具，”魔鬼告诉唐璜。 “我知道美丽是好看的；音乐很好听；爱的感觉是美好的；思考和谈论它们都是好的……至于你的生命力，最终[服务它会导致你]绝望和衰老，精神崩溃和希望破碎，对最糟糕和最愚蠢的浪费的徒劳的遗憾和牺牲，享受的力量的浪费和牺牲：总而言之，这是对在获得好处之前追求更好的傻瓜的惩罚。”[49]同上，第。 170。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。）

“但至少我不会感到无聊。”唐望回答。 “再见，撒旦先生。”[50]同上。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。）

然后唐望请求雕像指引他去天堂。雕像回答说，天堂与地狱之间的界限只是两种看待事物的方式之间的差异。 “如果你真的想去那里，任何一条路都会带你过去。”[51]同上，第。 171。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。）

唐璜就走了。

当他从视线中消失时，魔鬼警告安娜：“当心对超人的追求：这会导致对人类的不加区别的蔑视。”[52]同上，第。 173。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。）

“告诉我，”安娜问魔鬼，“我在哪里可以找到超人？”

“他还没有被创造，”魔鬼回答道。

“尚未创建！”安娜哭了。 “那么我的工作还没有完成。我相信来生。一个父亲！超人的父亲！”[53]同上。
（Shaw，1981，第 140 页。）

安娜看着唐望刚才站的地方，但那时他已经走了。

值得注意的是，皮尔斯四十多年前第一次读到的这部肖的戏剧中，有如此多的元素已经成为皮尔斯自己生活的一部分。其中：对当代生活的浅薄和误导的蔑视。寻求一个宏伟目标来指导自己的生活的想法。正面面对现实的价值，而不是过着“玩耍和假装”的生活。智力和获得对事物的全面看法至关重要。将服务生命力作为生命的组织原则和目的的想法。专注于改善比赛。将生活视为与强大的对立力量的斗争。反犹太主题（同样，在邵氏剧中魔鬼是犹太人）。勇气的重要性和超越个人对受尊重的渴望的意愿。坚定不移、坚持到底的美德。一方面是爱情、家庭和女性之间的矛盾，另一方面是男性实现人生目标的矛盾。说这部剧和皮尔斯一生所做的事情之间有直接的、排他性的因果关系，那就太简单了。事实上，他的成就是由很多因素造成的。但皮尔斯确实把听邵氏戏剧视为他人生的一个重大转折点，在看过这部戏剧之后，我相信了他。

“萧伯纳的想法，”皮尔斯告诉我，“以及我对它所做的阐述，回答了这个基本问题：一个人一生中能做的最重要的事情是什么，人生的正确目的是什么。无论如何，从一般意义上来说，我已经回答了。那就是服务生命力：尽你所能创造一个更有意识、更美丽、高度进化的宇宙。但这仍然留下了一个具体问题：人们如何去做呢？当然，这个问题对于不同的人来说有不同的答案。你可以用不同的方式来解决这个问题。您可以成为一名物理学家并了解有关宇宙如何运作的更多信息。这是一种方式，也是我一直在学习的课程。

“当我在读研究生时，我决定从事物理学方面的学术职业，尽管当时工业界的工资大约是大学时的两倍。但购买很多好东西对我来说并不像能够自由地制定自己的日程安排、按照自己的节奏工作、做我想做的事情而不是别人给我的一些项目那么有吸引力。那时（仍然如此），在一、二流大学中，物理教师每周负责三节课，九个小时。这会给我时间去学习和思考。再加上大学的环境很吸引我，常春藤覆盖的建筑物等等。所以我想成为一名学术物理学家，在俄勒冈州立大学的头两年我一直保持着这个想法。”

“但你并没有留在物理学领域。为什么不？”

“在那之前，我从来没有花时间去思考种族或政治问题。在我结婚之前，我只是对物理感兴趣，并且一直在追求女孩和我的爱好。我买了一架飞机去潜水和航海。但请记住，那是在 1960 世纪 XNUMX 年代，我越来越意识到我所看到的非常严重的社会问题。发生了民权革命和反对越南战争的抗议活动。这一切都令人烦恼。社会开始瓦解，所以我必须思考这如何与我面临的基本问题相适应。

“我认为这只是一个时间问题。如果我在 1955 年去俄勒冈州立大学，当时情况比 1962 年要正常和稳定得多，我可能会留下来并成为一名正教授。如果我早点来，我就会有研究生为我工作，我会在校园里有更多的人脉，而且年龄会更大，也不会那么冒险。也许我会对所发生的事情感到遗憾，并会与其他人讨论这件事，但我可能会留在教职人员。

“随着 60 年代的流逝，在这个国家和我看来，有两项重大的社会发展开始变得非常引人注目。其中之一是反越战运动，另一个是民权革命。反战活动真正引起我注意的是其进行的特殊方式。人们实际上是在示威支持共产党。他们非常公开地表达了对越共的同情。我不禁将这种事情与第二次世界大战的情况进行了对比。如果有人开始挥舞纳粹标志并大喊“嗬，嗬，希特勒要赢了！”或类似的话，大量的砖头就会落在他们身上。肯定会找到办法把他们关起来的，这一点你可以肯定。当时，持不同政见是大忌。

“我想到了为什么在第二次世界大战期间，与 60 年代所发生的情况相比，政府和媒体更加坚决地要求每个人保持同步，步调一致。我已经足够大了，还记得二战期间为让人们处于战争心态而做的所有小事。例如，他们有各种各样的驱动器和收藏品，就好像我们非常缺乏这些材料一样，这产生了很大的不同。他们会收集铝制锅碗瓢盆，并说他们要用它们来制造轰炸机。我不确定他们真的这么做了，但这并不是事情的全部。这是为了让平民参与进来并压制异议。

“战争期间，我还是个八九岁的孩子，我常常开着马车挨家挨户地收集厨房油脂。我会告诉人们我收集它是为了战争。我想他们确实将油脂转化为烈性炸药，但同样，这些活动是为了让人们参与进来并激发战争的情绪。政府不想给人们以其他方式思考的机会。顺便说一句，我实际上会用我收集的东西在杂货店以每磅八或十美分的价格出售。我这样做赚了很多钱。

“我所说的另一个例子是，他们在我居住的诺福克（弗吉尼亚州）有人挖防空洞。那里有一个很大的海军基地，因此是一个战略中心。但实际上，诺福克不可能发生空袭。它将从哪里发射？敌人没有足够近的基地来完成这一任务。但他们让人挖避难所并充当防空守卫。他们甚至让人把汽车前灯的上半部分漆成黑色，这样灯光就不会那么亮了。只是忙着让人们处于正确的情绪并防止他们提出异议，无论他们的私人想法是什么。

“但在越南战争中，我们对抗的是小黄人，而不是我们自己的亲人，就像我们在第二次世界大战中对抗德国人一样，我们没有任何这种推动战争的活动。人们代表敌人示威，挥舞着越共旗帜并焚烧美国国旗。我花了一段时间才开始把这些碎片拼凑起来，例如，看看犹太人在这些反战活动中有多么突出，以及他们如何利用战争作为社会变革、社会动乱的工具。很快我就看到正在发生一些严重的事情，这让我思考和阅读我们参加过的其他战争，我们当时的动机是什么，现在正在发生的事情的意义，为什么对共产主义如此强烈的同情等等。

“至于民权革命，当然有人为此工作了很长一段时间，但在 60 年代，它确实成为了头条新闻，并以当时正在发生的戏剧和演讲的形式出现在电视上， -在午餐柜台和游行等等。校园里发生了很多与此相关的事情，这让我停下来思考。正如我之前所说，如果这些年来事情或多或少正常，而问题是酗酒、吸烟等常见的社会恶习，我可能会思考并谈论它，但我不会我已经看到了参与十字军东征或改变我的生活的必要性。但我认为反战和民权运动从根本上来说比其他事情更重要，它们正在把我们带到某个地方。这些事件本身可能是暂时的，但它们是我们社会加速变化的一部分。我感兴趣的是我们要去哪里，我们是否真的想去那里，以及我是否希望社会去那里。

“我校园里的其他教师也参与了这些问题，但当时我并没有选边站队。我仍然主要对物理、玩电子玩具和教授课程感兴趣。我只是想弄清楚这一切意味着什么。但当我更清楚地了解这一切的含义时，我发现它越来越令人不安。我开始看到反战运动和政府未能全力支持越南的军事行动实际上是在杀害我们的人民。东南亚的美国年轻人死亡率很高。战争是一件严肃的事情，如果这是政府的政策，他们就应该全力以赴，确保尽快完成任务，尽量减少伤亡。那些年发生的垃圾事件，亲越共的示威活动等等——而且主要是犹太人组织这些事情——不应该被容忍。

“我很清楚，政府不会全力投入这场越南战争。华盛顿制定战争政策的人更关心《华盛顿邮报》将对此发表什么看法，而不是这是否是良好的军事战略。事实上，这是可以理解的，因为在第二次世界大战期间，政府不必担心公众舆论，因为所有主要的宣传工具——电影业、大报纸等等，都由犹太人控制，所以发生了——非常喜欢那场战争并且百分百合作。现在情况不同了，因为大型媒体不再热衷于越南战争，政府必须考虑到这一点，以免与他们发生冲突。

“我可以看到民权运动的发展方向。他们的目标是让黑人完全融入白人社会。 1954 年，最高法院做出了布朗诉托皮卡教育委员会关于学校整合的决定，艾森豪威尔于 58 年派遣军队前往小石城，强制执行当地中央高中的整合。当时我还是一名研究生，并没有过多关注正在发生的事情，但现在在俄勒冈州立大学，我开始关注。这将导致黑人文化对白人文化的影响比以前大得多，并将导致更多的跨种族婚姻和种族混血儿童。我预见到了这一点。

“我们已经有爵士乐了。我知道很多白人对此很狂热，但就我个人而言，我从来不明白它到底有什么吸引力。但我们不仅仅会得到像爵士乐这样的防御性的东西。我们还将了解黑人对工作、性、教育、权威和个人克制的态度，我们还将了解他们其余的音乐，而所有这些都会降低白人文化，而不是丰富它。如果民权革命成功的话，这种情况就会发生。

“大约在这个时候，我第一次认真审视异族婚姻，”皮尔斯说。皮尔斯随后向我讲述了另一位与他交往过的物理学教授。这位教授娶了一位皮尔斯描述的“黑白混血女人”，并育有几个孩子。皮尔斯说，他们的处境让他产生了疑问，并引发了他所谓的本能反应。为什么他的朋友选择娶这个女人？皮尔斯问自己。他怎么会对她有一种亲切感呢？皮尔斯对孩子们“丑陋”的外表感到厌恶，他形容孩子们“脸色扁平，肤色暗淡”。皮尔斯说，他知道这位父亲爱这些孩子，但他就是不明白他的同事怎么会认同他们。对于皮尔斯来说，这一定是一次非常有力的成长经历，因为他在我与他的谈话中多次提到了这一点。我认为他对这对异族夫妇和他们的孩子的反应，他非常了解他们，以及它在他心中引起的混乱的想法和感受是他人生的一个重大转折点。他尊重他的科学家同事，与他成为朋友，看到了这个家庭的爱，同时发现自己在思考这个问题，并认为其中有些地方不对劲，不自然。这促使他提出问题，而这些问题的答案将影响他的人生轨迹。

“我对历史了解得足够多，”皮尔斯继续说道，“意识到你真的必须把手指放在堤坝上，否则它就会失控。一般白人只考虑三十分钟后会发生什么，但看不到这一点。他看到黑人为民权而示威，但他并不认为这对他有任何真正的威胁——此外，他可能相信别人向他推销的想法，即所发生的一切都是关于自由和社会正义，而不是关于文化和种族生存。他并不担心这对他的子孙、曾孙和玄孙意味着什么。但如果他从历史和种族的角度来看这件事，他就会发现，如果他允许这种情况发生，在几代人的努力下，这将意味着美国白人的终结。我们将迎来另一个巴西（一个混血国家）。

“我意识到我的思维倾向导致我为了更好地理解而夸大和过于简单化事情，我知道这其中存在危险。但我认为我内心的倾向可以帮助我了解事物的本质。我确实相信它帮助我了解了这两个社会运动——民权和反越战——正在发生的事情的核心，因为这是我一生中第一次有机会并且渴望密切关注这两个社会运动的核心内容。发生在我周围。我从中得到的结果是意识到我必须对我得出的结论采取一些行动。这给我带来了一些真正的挑战。我喜欢物理并且不想放弃它。在大学里的生活相对轻松。有地位，有长假，而且钱其实也不错。我要养活一个年轻的家庭——两个儿子——而我的妻子没有工作，完全依赖我。但我不能对此保持沉默。”

“这段时间我读了很多书，”皮尔斯告诉我，“这帮助我形成了对周围世界的解释。我认为只有在我解释了周围的世界之后，我才能回答我具体应该做什么的问题。我一直是一个不拘一格的读者，所以我会在图书馆的书架上闲逛，找到一本让我感兴趣的书，然后把它带回家阅读。”

皮尔斯告诉我，他读过的书有德国历史哲学家奥斯瓦尔德·斯宾格勒的著作，其中包括 西方的衰落, 决定时间及 人与技术.[54]27.奥斯瓦尔德·斯宾格勒， 决定时间 （纽约：A.A.克诺夫，1934）。奥斯瓦尔德·斯宾格勒, 人与技术 （伦敦：欧洲图书协会，1992 年）。 皮尔斯说他也读过斯宾格勒的一些格言。斯宾格勒出生于 1880 年，逝世于 1936 年。 西方的衰落，于 1918 年和 1922 年出版两卷。[55]奥斯瓦尔德·斯宾格勒（Oswald Spengler）， 西方的衰落 （纽约：A.A.克诺夫，1926）。 西方的衰落 包含着一个悲观的论点，即西方文明正处于衰落时期，其复兴是不可能的。皮尔斯在阅读斯宾格勒之后得出这样的想法：西方文明正受到威胁，其延续存在问题，无法保证我们的生活方式会持续下去，我们最好对正在发生的事情保持警惕。

“我还在俄勒冈州立大学读过布鲁克斯·亚当斯的书，”皮尔斯告诉我。 “他在伦理和认识论意义上的影响力不如萧伯纳，但在理解历史和不同类型的人方面，我认为他有很多洞察力。”

布鲁克斯·亚当斯是十九世纪末的经济学家和历史学家。他是显赫的亚当斯家族的成员：他的曾祖父是约翰·亚当斯，创始人之一、第二任总统；他的祖父是第六任总统约翰·昆西·亚当斯。他的兄弟是著名的哈佛大学历史学家亨利·亚当斯。影响皮尔斯的布鲁克斯·亚当斯 (Brooks Adams) 的书是他 1903 年的著作， 文明与腐朽法.[56]布鲁克斯·亚当斯（Brooks Adams），《文明与衰败法则：历史论文》（纽约：麦克米伦，1903 年）。 特别是，书中有一点让皮尔斯印象深刻：亚当斯在两种基本类型的个人之间做出了区分。亚当斯将一种类型称为精神人，将另一种类型称为经济人。

亚当斯将精神人描述为富有冒险精神和理想主义的人。他们是有远见、勇敢的人。他们与自己的根源和传统有着紧密的联系。亚当斯说，有精神的人是文明的建设者。作为精神人物的例子，他列举了农民、战士和诗人。亚当斯认为英国自耕农（古代的农民/战士）是精神人的缩影。亚当斯说，文明建立后，经济人就会脱颖而出。虽然冒险精神和理想主义潮流在精神人身上盛行，但经济人却是唯物主义者。他们的典型代表是商人和官僚。皮尔斯借鉴亚当斯的分类，将经济人描述为那些知道如何计算可能性和评估机会的人。他们已经摆脱了精神根源，成为世界主义者，这为他们提供了个人和经济优势。皮尔斯引用当代律师、商人和政治家作为经济人的例子。自从在俄勒冈州立大学的早期以来，皮尔斯就一直担心欧洲人的精神和审美意识、战士精神以及对神圣事物的感觉的丧失。

正如他参考亚当斯的经济人概念一样，皮尔斯经常使用“世界主义”和“世界主义”一词来描述欧洲裔美国人的现状，显然他不喜欢这样。在我们的一次谈话中，我请他定义“世界主义”一词。 “基本上，国际化，至少在我看来，”他回答道，“是多元文化的同义词。我把“cosmopolitan”这个词追溯到 1930 世纪 30 年代，当时同名杂志刚刚发行，或者至少我认为是在 XNUMX 年代。无论如何，在这种情况下，世界性的人被用来指温文尔雅、成熟、熟悉许多事物的人，而不是狭隘和狭隘的人。在那个时代，它并没有我和其他人现在赋予它的内涵，那就是一个被驱逐的人——没有种族——而且没有根基。当我使用它时，我会想到纽约市或华盛顿特区等地方的白人。”

“因此，当你谈论国际化时，你并不是在理解‘与它共存’的人的想法，这就是我的想法。”

“不，对我来说，国际化与此有着不同的含义。对我来说，这意味着不再是真正的白人，不再是真正的西方人。这是一个混合型的人，我想就是这样说的。”

“也是在这个时候，”皮尔斯告诉我，“我读到 因此，说Zarathustra 弗里德里希·尼采的著作，这对我影响很大。”[57]我不确定皮尔斯读的是哪个版本的书。引用的页面来自我的副本：弗里德里希·尼采， 查拉图斯特拉如是说：一本适合所有人但不适合任何人的书 （纽约：企鹅出版社，1961 年，最初出版于 1892 年）。 尼采（Nietzsche），生于1844年，卒于1900年，德国哲学家、古典学者。 1868年至1878年，他担任瑞士巴塞尔大学古典学教授，后因健康状况不佳退休。尼采从那时起就致力于写作，直到1889年他精神崩溃，从此再也没有恢复过来。他写了很多书，其中， 悲剧的产生, 超越善恶及 道德家谱。皮尔斯读过的书， 因此，说Zarathustra《查拉图斯特拉如是说》写于 1883 年至 1885 年，分四部分出版，最后出版于 1892 年。书中交替出现诗歌、戏仿、警句和先知查拉图斯特拉对其崇拜者的宣言。 因此，说Zarathustra 被广泛认为是尼采最伟大的作品。尼采被列为该领域历史上最有影响力、最广泛研究和争论的哲学家之一。他对许多哲学家、艺术家、心理学家和社会分析家产生了巨大影响，至今仍被广泛讨论。

在这种背景下，尼采提出的三个思想值得一提：权力意志；超人或超人的概念；以及尼采所说的“奴隶道德”和“主人道德”之间的对比。

尼采所说的权力意志意味着统治或掌握的冲动。他认为这种冲动是所有生命的主要力量，包括人类。根据尼采的说法，权力意志解释了人类往往在面对巨大的压力、紧张和痛苦，甚至死亡的前景时，会奋力前进，以完成让一个人感到强大、有能力和有能力的任务。强的。有些人误解了尼采，认为权力意志等同于对他人的统治和掌握。更重要的是，尼采谈论的是对自我的权力。他对政治或经济权力并不真正感兴趣。他最关心的是自我掌控和自我克服——变得比现在更好。

尼采认为权力意志是赋予人类生命独特价值的力量。他认为人类可以有意识地利用这种力量，成为他所阐述的更高形式人类愿景的体现。他想象人类掌握并引导自己的能量，从而服务于将自己转变为具有无限激情、强烈快乐和创造力的存在的过程。这些生物将是超人或超人。他们将体现我们光荣的命运。

尼采认为，实现超人的道路上有一个主要障碍，它表现为一套道德价值观，即正确与错误的概念。尼采将阻碍超人发展的一套道德价值观称为“奴隶道德”。他认为，奴隶道德是强者的恐惧和怨恨的产物，而弱者和能力较差的人则有成就。他指责基督教会阐明普通民众对统治者的不满并使之合法化，以便为自己赢得权力。尼采说，教会鼓励地位较低的人将自己的弱点定义为好的，而将比自己强的人的侵略性力量和控制定义为坏的。按照奴隶道德，骄傲、凶猛是不好的，温顺、谦卑是好的，坚强是不好的，多愁善感是好的。奴隶道德谴责自我主张为傲慢，以羞耻扭曲身体和性欲，并通过颂扬虚幻的来世来削弱尘世生活。尼采认为奴隶道德本质上是对生命的否定。

尼采呼吁建立一种大师道德，这种道德将肯定以热情追求的生活，促进自我超越，并消除对罪恶感的关注。尼采恳求人类对这个地球保持忠诚。他不想构建一个只会强调人类自卑的高高在上的理想，而是希望我们构想一种更高类型的人性，并努力实现它。他认为，为了开始这次冒险，我们必须消除使我们受奴役的道德。尼采说，超人和创造超人的手段必须成为价值标准。

“尼采的哪一点让你印象深刻？”我问皮尔斯。

“在序言中 查拉图斯特拉 有一些台词深深地印在我的脑海里。让我看看能不能找到他们。”皮尔斯把手伸到身后，立即找到了他的平装本 因此，说Zarathustra，翻了大约三秒钟，开始阅读段落：“‘看哪，我教你超人。超人就是地球的意思。让你的意志说：超人 应该 地球的意义！’[58]同上，第。 42。
（我不确定皮尔斯读的是哪一本书的版本。引用的页面来自我的副本：弗里德里希·尼采， 查拉图斯特拉如是说：一本适合所有人但不适合任何人的书 （纽约：企鹅出版社，1961 年，最初出版于 1892 年）。）……人是一根绳子，系在动物和超人之间——一根悬在深渊上的绳子。危险的穿越，危险的行进，危险的回头，危险的颤抖和静止。人的伟大之处在于他是一座桥梁而不是一个目标；人之所以能被爱，是因为他是一个 穿越“。[59]同上，第43-44页。
（我不确定皮尔斯读的是哪一本书的版本。引用的页面来自我的副本：弗里德里希·尼采， 查拉图斯特拉如是说：一本适合所有人但不适合任何人的书 （纽约：企鹅出版社，1961 年，最初出版于 1892 年）。）……我爱所有那些像大雨滴一样从笼罩在人类上空的乌云中落下的人：他们预言闪电的到来，但作为先知，他们却灭亡了。看哪，我是闪电和从云中重重落下的先知：但这闪电被称为 超人。'”[60]同上，第。 45。
（我不确定皮尔斯读的是哪一本书的版本。引用的页面来自我的副本：弗里德里希·尼采， 查拉图斯特拉如是说：一本适合所有人但不适合任何人的书 （纽约：企鹅出版社，1961 年，最初出版于 1892 年）。）

“超人——这个概念对你来说意味着什么？”我问皮尔斯。

“尼采在他的著作中花费了大量的时间，尤其是在 查拉图斯特拉，感叹人性的弱点和愚蠢，并期待着我们能够克服这些事情的那一天。对于尼采来说，超人体现了这一克服过程的理想结果。超人代表了人类可以达到的最佳状态。超人还不存在。他还没有出生。但他将从人类中诞生。他不是某种独立或超然的存在。因此，这归结为一项进化工作，一项繁殖工作，可能需要很长一段时间才能完成。现在活着的人的任务是为超人准备地球，铺平道路，为这一进程服务。你明白我在说什么吗？”

“我想是这样。我读过相当多的尼采著作。你心里有超人的形象吗？

“在某种程度上。我认为，通过观察我们在自己、今天的其他人以及过去的人身上看到的一系列品质，然后将这些品质按照从低到高的等级排列，我们可以得到一些关于超人是什么样子的暗示或部分想法。基于尼采价值观，然后推断出最高理想。我认为这让我们朝着正确的方向前进。”

“在你看来，什么样的品质才是最重要的？”

“智慧是一种基于客观性的智慧，一种看到世界本来面目的能力。还有勇气，而不是害怕或胆怯。自我掌控就是其中之一——事实上，这可能是一个人可以拥有的最有价值的品质。意志力，即充分利用你所拥有的所有才能和优势而不屈服于弱点的能力，以及一旦你决定做某事就能够坚持完成任务，把其他一切放在一边并集中你的能力的能力以及完成该任务的精力。这些是我放在列表顶部的一些内容。

“我在某处有一幅卡通片，是我从 纽约客 每个作家都应该把杂志挂在墙上。这是一个坐在打字机前试图写作的人，他的肩膀上有一个小恶魔，恶魔在说：“嘿，让我们去奥马利酒吧喝一杯吧！”这个人显然受到了折磨，因为这正是他想做的，但同时他又试图强迫自己留在打字机前写作。

“我试图克服的一个很大的弱点是拖延——偷懒做简单的事情，而不是解决真正困难的事情。意志力，即充分利用自己的能力，是如此重要。我认为通过适当的育儿和教育方法可以最大限度地提高这种品质。与今天人们的情况相比，我们可以在这方面做出很大的改进。这就是为什么我认为纵容是一种具有破坏性的抚养孩子的方式。孩子在成年后学习自我控制的唯一方法就是在他年轻的时候对他施加外部纪律。只有当孩子被赋予一项任务，并且他知道他必须完成它，否则将付出惨重的代价时，他才能发展出支持他克服困难和逆境并在以后的生活中完成真正伟大工作的力量。

“当今的哲学常常是，不应该强迫孩子做他们不想做的事情，他们永远不应该经历失败或失败的后果，而且总应该有出路。我认为，让孩子们知道，如果你被告知去做某事，那么如果你偷懒的话，不会有什么不好的事情发生在你身上，这样的教育是灾难性的。它只是训练人们这样做。

“我的父母对抚养孩子的态度可能比一般人要好一些。我看着，我看到了一些我很擅长的地方，因为他们养育了我，但我也看到了我的一些弱点，我想今天对我来说会好得多，我能做的更多如果我接受过比我更严格的教育，我就能实现这一目标。这当然是很久以前的事了，五六十年了。从那时起，由于电视和斯波克博士的宽容哲学以及学校和其他一切发生的事情的影响，事情变得更糟。 [博士。本杰明·斯波克 (Benjamin Spock) 是一位儿科医生，他对育儿的看法在 1950 世纪 60 年代和 XNUMX 年代尤其有影响力。]

“但从尼采的角度来看，我在他身上看到的是对更高层次人性的追求。对我来说，这意味着更美丽、更高尚的人类和人类的存在。你在尼采的著作中都可以看到这一点，对我来说，这是他教导的核心。”

“那些年我非常喜欢丁尼生的一首诗，”皮尔斯说。 “丁尼生是英国桂冠诗人。这首诗叫做《尤利西斯》。[61]阿尔弗雷德·丁尼生勋爵 (Alfred Lord Tennyson)，《尤利西斯》，收录于 G. B. Harrison，收藏家， 英国诗集：乔叟到罗塞蒂 （英国米德尔塞克斯：企鹅出版社，1937 年），第 361 页。 XNUMX. 让我看看能不能找到。”

皮尔斯站起来，转身扫了一眼书柜，取出一本小书。他转身面向我，仍然站着，没有任何介绍，从头开始读——“对一个无所事事的国王来说没什么好处……”——一直读到这首七十行诗的结尾。年老的尤利西斯宣称，他将继续进行英勇的冒险探索，直到生命的尽头：我会把生命喝尽。” “停下来，结束，生锈，在使用中不发光，是多么乏味啊。”这首诗的结尾呼吁其他人加入他的行列：

来吧，我的朋友们，
``寻找一个新世界还为时不晚。
推开，并坐好以减轻体重
发声的犁沟； 为了我的目的
驶过日落和浴场
在所有西方明星中，直到我死。

 

也许深渊会把我们冲垮；
也许我们会碰到快乐小岛，
看看我们认识的伟大的阿喀琉斯。
尽管付出了很多，但仍然遵守。 虽然
我们现在不像以前那样强大了
感动天地；我们就是：
勇敢的心同等脾气，
因时间和命运而变得虚弱，但意志坚强
努力，寻求，寻找而不是屈服。

当皮尔斯背诵完丁尼生的诗后，他小心翼翼地将书放回书架上的位置，然后又坐下来，我们默默地对视了一会儿。

皮尔斯在俄勒冈州立大学读书期间读过的许多书都是关于一个人的，他的生活和思想给了他灵感和方向：阿道夫·希特勒。皮尔斯如何能够在我们这个时代，甚至可能是有史以来最受普遍鄙视的人物身上找到任何值得喜欢的地方，这需要解释。本章将尝试解释它是如何发生的。

“我在俄勒冈州立大学时读到的一本书叫做 希特勒：暴政研究 艾伦·布洛克写的，”皮尔斯告诉我。[62]艾伦·布洛克, 希特勒：暴政研究 （伦敦：Odhams 出版社，1959 年）。 “布洛克是宫廷历史学家之一。他所写的历史解释会让人拍拍他的头并得到晋升等等。所以这是一本充满敌意的希特勒传记。但尽管如此，希特勒在短短几年内所做的事情以及它的非凡之处还是让我感受到了。 1918 年，希特勒因英国毒气袭击而在一家军事医院失明。他只是一名下士，没有家庭，学历有限，没有朋友，没有关系，没有政治地位，什么都没有。他决定领导德国纠正第一次世界大战后所犯下的严重错误，并纠正德国社会所犯的一些错误。十五年后，他成为德国总理，他做了他说过要做的事。一个受伤的退伍军人，没有人帮助他，他仅靠自己的意志力把事情拉了回来。这是一个了不起的故事。

“我确信布洛克听到他的书所产生的影响一定会感到惊讶。这无疑对我产生了重大影响。并不是说我能做到希特勒所做的任何事情，而是说一个人如果有一个目标并为实现它付出一切，他就能完成什么，这就是我的想法。我确信，如果希特勒不是如此反对统治当今世界的犹太精神，他就不会像现在这样被妖魔化。如果他不是那么致命的威胁，他们就不会打扰。

“另一本书给我留下了深刻的印象，是一本小书，名叫 我知道的年轻希特勒 奥古斯特·库比泽克。[63]奥古斯特·库比塞克（August Kubizek）， 我知道的年轻希特勒 （纽约：Tower Publications，1954）。 库比泽克是希特勒青少年时期的密友。他们一起在奥地利林茨上学。库比泽克是个温和、狡猾的人。他和希特勒经常去看歌剧院。他们将获得特殊的学生入场资格，但这并不意味着他们有权获得座位，而是有权在支撑阳台的柱子前站立。 1906 年一个非常寒冷的夜晚，我想那是——希特勒当时十七岁——他们两个去看了一场演出 里恩兹 瓦格纳。 [这部歌剧讲述了罗马保民官科拉·里恩齐 (Cola Rienzi) 的故事，他被描绘成一位从腐败寡头政治手中夺取权力的爱国英雄。] 显然，这段经历对希特勒产生了深远的影响。库比泽克在他的书中描述了演出结束后希特勒显得非常紧张。夜已深了，他们一起走到城郊的一座小山上，站在星空下。然后希特勒的情绪爆发了。他突然开始用一种紧张而沙哑的声音倾诉自己的感受：他的命运就是领导德国人民。库比泽克心想：“这家伙到底是怎么了，他疯了吗？”

“库比泽克和希特勒后来一起去了维也纳，库比泽克在那里的音乐学院学习音乐，希特勒去了艺术学校，尽管结果他们不承认他。库比泽克和希特勒渐行渐远，库比泽克作为一名音乐会音乐家继续拥有相当受人尊敬的职业生涯，当然希特勒也成为了德国总理。 1941 年左右，库比泽克收到了参加一年一度的演出的邀请。 。 瓦格纳。当着温尼弗雷德·瓦格纳的面，他在三十年未见的希特勒家里再次见到了他。库比泽克对希特勒说：“你还记得在林茨的那天晚上，当我们在看到 里恩兹”希特勒回答说：“是的，我确实愿意。就在那一刻，一切开始了。’”

“为什么这个故事让你印象深刻？”我问。

“这确实启发了我。看到有人如此认真地对待自己的生活，并渴望为他的人民谋取伟大的事情，这种感觉一直萦绕在我的心头。而且，阅读这一事件也是将希特勒推向我的宇宙中心的原因之一。”

我找到了库比泽克的书中关于他和希特勒见面的那部分 里恩兹 皮尔斯提到的一起。库比泽克讲述了深夜歌剧结束后在璀璨星空下与十八岁的希特勒站在一起的经历：

阿道夫站在我面前；现在他握住我的双手，紧紧地握着。他以前从未做过这样的手势。从他紧握的双手中，我感受到了他的感动。他的眼睛因兴奋而变得狂热。这句话从他嘴里说出来并不像平常那​​样流畅，而是爆发出来，沙哑而沙哑。从他的声音中，我可以更多地看出这次经历对他的震撼有多大……我无法重复我朋友所说的每一个字。我被一些奇怪的东西震惊了，这是我以前从未注意到的，即使他在最兴奋的时刻与我交谈。就好像另一个人从他的身体里说话，让他感动，就像让我感动一样。这根本不是演讲者被自己的话冲昏头脑的情况。相反;我觉得他本人带着惊讶和情感聆听着他以基本力量爆发出来的声音。我不会试图解释这种现象，但这是一种完全狂喜和狂喜的状态，在这种状态下，他将黎恩齐的性格转移到了他自己的野心的平面上，甚至没有提到他作为一个模型或例子。但这不仅仅是一种廉价的改编。事实上，歌剧的影响完全是一种迫使他说话的外部冲动。就像洪水决堤一样，他的话语从他的口中迸发出来。他以宏伟、鼓舞人心的方式描绘了他自己和他的人民的未来。[64]库比泽克，p。 97.

皮尔斯准确地记得，库比泽克接着说，三十年后希特勒告诉他“就在那一刻，一切开始了”。皮尔斯感受到的是希特勒所体现的巨大使命感。一个人的一生可以植根于一个宏伟的目标。一个人自己的生命也可以这么认真对待。人们可以将这种程度的重要性归因于他的存在。我认为皮尔斯把这一切都牢记在心，这强烈影响了他如何看待自己、自己的可能性以及他一生所做的事情。顺便说一句，瓦格纳歌剧不仅描绘了黎恩齐的崛起。它还记录了他的垮台，在歌剧结束时他被暴徒推翻。

“我读过的另一本书，”皮尔斯告诉我，“是迪特里希·埃卡特写的，书名是 从摩西到列宁的布尔什维主义”。虽然是后来读的时候，但在1965年，它确实对我产生了很大的影响。这是一部简短的作品，实际上是一本小册子或一本小册子。它只有德语版本，但它是用清晰、简单的散文写成的，所以我拿出德语词典翻译了它。这本小册子是想象的或重建的埃卡特和希特勒之间的对话。两人是亲密的朋友，希特勒视埃卡特为导师——埃卡特比希特勒年长二十一岁。毫无疑问，他们就小册子所涵盖的主题进行了多次对话。

“埃卡特的小册子帮助我了解了犹太人。特别是，它让我对旧约圣经的信息大开眼界。圣经材料由于使用华丽的诗意语言而容易产生误导。直到我读完埃卡特的书后又重新阅读旧约时，我才真正吸收了旧约中的信息。它让我对旧约和犹太人的工作方式有了很多了解。当我还是个孩子的时候，我就带着有色眼镜读圣经。我仍然引用我从埃卡特书中学到的一些东西。

“埃卡特写道 从摩西到列宁的布尔什维主义 1923 年，就在他因与希特勒有牵连而被德国政府监禁之前。他因监禁而死亡。我把它的翻译发表在一本我开始命名的杂志上 国家社会主义世界设立的区域办事处外，我们在美国也开设了办事处，以便我们为当地客户提供更多的支持。“

我发现了这个问题 国家社会主义世界 其中包含皮尔斯的翻译 从摩西到列宁的布尔什维主义.[65]迪特里希·埃卡特（Dietrich Eckart），《从摩西到列宁的布尔什维克主义》，威廉·皮尔斯从德文翻译， 国家社会主义世界， 不。 2，1966 年秋季，第 13-33 页。 皮尔斯在其译本的前言中写道，埃卡特于 1868 年出生于巴伐利亚。皮尔斯将他描述为“一位诗人、剧作家、记者、学者和哲学家，以及国家社会主义事业的奉献战士”。[66]同上，第。 13。
（迪特里希·埃卡特（Dietrich Eckart），《从摩西到列宁的布尔什维主义》，威廉·皮尔斯（William Pierce）从德文翻译而来， 国家社会主义世界， 不。 2，1966 年秋季，第 13-33 页。） 皮尔斯写道，埃卡特是希特勒的“亲密伴侣”。这可能是真的，但读完这些材料后，我的印象是，虽然埃卡特可能是根据他与希特勒的谈话编写了这本书，并且他可能一直在试图表达希特勒的基本思想，但本书中表达事物的方式与其说是希特勒，不如说是艾卡特。这本小册子充满了脚注，读起来就像一篇学术文章。皮尔斯在前言中表示，埃卡特这本小册子的目标读者是相当于高中毕业生的人。如果这是埃卡特的意图，我认为他没有击中目标。我无法想象典型的高中毕业生（或大学毕业生）会参与本书中浮夸的散文。

从摩西到列宁的布尔什维主义 这是对犹太人历史角色的最严厉谴责。一些例子：

• 参考《旧约》，希特勒——或者更确切地说，希特勒的性格——被引用说：“真的，约书亚记就足够了；这种不间断的种族灭绝、兽性的残忍、无耻的贪婪和冷血的狡猾——地狱的化身。事实上，一切都是以耶和华的名义，按照他明确的意愿进行的！”[67]同上，第。 16。
  （迪特里希·埃卡特（Dietrich Eckart），《从摩西到列宁的布尔什维主义》，威廉·皮尔斯（William Pierce）从德文翻译而来， 国家社会主义世界， 不。 2，1966 年秋季，第 13-33 页。）
• 据希特勒称，马丁·路德在翻译希伯来语圣经时，将某个词翻译为“种族亲属”。 “但是，”希特勒说，“拉比过来说这个词的意思是‘邻居’。所以我们的翻译是：‘爱他们的邻居就像爱你自己一样’，而不是应该的：‘爱你的种族亲属’。”就像你自己一样。’”[68]同上，第。 27。
  （迪特里希·埃卡特（Dietrich Eckart），《从摩西到列宁的布尔什维主义》，威廉·皮尔斯（William Pierce）从德文翻译而来， 国家社会主义世界， 不。 2，1966 年秋季，第 13-33 页。）
• 埃卡特说：“桑巴特写道，没有哪个国家比美国更能体现犹太性格。我们已经在第一次世界大战中看到了这种情况的后果。 1915 年，当真正的美国人丝毫没有想过要对我们发动战争，事实上，他们对我们的态度非常好，任何可能存在利益冲突的迹象都可以顺利、友好地解决，这是一个秘密顾问委员会会见威尔逊总统的唯一目的是让该国为对德战争做好准备。这些邪恶活动的主要幕后操纵者是谁，这些活动是在美国参战整整两年前开始的？以前不为人知的犹太人，伯纳德·巴鲁克。”[69]同上，第。 20。
  （迪特里希·埃卡特（Dietrich Eckart），《从摩西到列宁的布尔什维主义》，威廉·皮尔斯（William Pierce）从德文翻译而来， 国家社会主义世界， 不。 2，1966 年秋季，第 13-33 页。）

从摩西到列宁的布尔什维主义 1923 年埃卡特去世时，该书尚未完成，死后根据埃卡特的笔记出版。皮尔斯在他的期刊文章中报道说，埃卡特在笔记中断之前的最后几行如下：“在我看来，意识到对他的[犹太人]受害者的无条件依赖是他仇恨的主要原因。他被迫竭尽全力消灭我们，但同时又怀疑这必然会导致他自己的毁灭，这就是原因所在。如果你愿意的话：路西法的悲剧。”[70]同上，第。 33。
（迪特里希·埃卡特（Dietrich Eckart），《从摩西到列宁的布尔什维主义》，威廉·皮尔斯（William Pierce）从德文翻译而来， 国家社会主义世界， 不。 2，1966 年秋季，第 13-33 页。）

“我还读过一本书，名叫 闪电与太阳 由萨维特里·德维（Savitri Devi）创作，她对希特勒非常崇拜，”皮尔斯回忆道。在皮尔斯提到他读过之后 闪电与太阳，我特意研究了这本书及其作者。我发现黛维是一个最有趣的角色。 灯光和太阳 1958 年在印度加尔各答出版。 Devi 于 1905 年出生于法国里昂，原名 Maximiani Portas。她的母亲是英国人，父亲有希腊和意大利背景，是法国公民。 1932 年，她移居印度时，取了印度教名字萨维特里·德维 (Savitri Devi)，她认为印度是雅利安人种的摇篮。黛维在婆罗门丈夫的帮助下出版了许多著作，综合了印度教思想和北欧种族意识形态。她崇拜阿道夫·希特勒，并赋予他和国家社会主义意识形态一种神秘感，使他们超越德国历史的狭隘现实，达到一种崇拜的地位。第二次世界大战后，黛维因纳粹宣传活动在德国科隆被捕并被英国占领军监禁。从 1960 世纪 1982 年代到 XNUMX 年去世，她一直是国际主义新纳粹地下组织的领导人物。[71]请参阅最近关于黛维的精彩传记：尼古拉斯·古德里克·克拉克 (Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke)， 希特勒的女祭司：萨维特里·德维、印度教-雅利安神话和新纳粹主义 （纽约：纽约大学出版社，1998 年）。

黛维开始了 闪电与太阳 1948年完成，1956年在狱中完成。这是一本很长的书——它可以使用一些蓝色铅笔——并且在一些地方密集而深奥，对她认为是雅利安传统遗产的印度教元素进行了冗长的论述。这本书涉及黛维的许多信念，包括素食主义和保护自然环境，但皮尔斯最能感受到的是她对国家社会主义的热情和对希特勒的崇拜。

黛维用她制定的“人与时间对抗”的学说将希特勒描绘成一个神话般的神一样的存在。[72]古德里克-克拉克，第 117-120 页。 在黛维的思想中，对抗时间的人是印度教神毗湿奴在尘世的化身。毗湿奴并不像犹太教和基督教所认为的上帝那样被认为是一个有知性的、独立的存在。相反，它是所有存在的力量或方面。毗湿奴是世界的维持者，每个生物都倾向于维持自己并以自己的方式繁衍后代。这是反对解体和死亡的力量。德维说，与时间抗争的人是“世界的救世主：生命的力量，对抗[看似]不可抗拒的变化的下行潮流； [它们是]生命的力量，试图将世界带回原始的、永恒的完美。”[73]同上，第。 115。
（古德里克-克拉克，第 117-120 页。） 这些对抗时间的人将最高的启蒙和理想（“太阳”）与自然力量（“闪电”）的破坏性力量结合起来——这就是本书的标题， 闪电和太阳。 在黛维的概念中，与时间对抗的人往往是军事英雄，用她的传记作者尼古拉斯·古德里克·克拉克的话来说，他们“致力于将世界从黑暗时代的束缚中拯救出来”。[74]同上。
（古德里克-克拉克，第 117-120 页。） 他们将智慧与实践（包括残酷和暴力）结合起来，以拯救和重生世界。他们是历史上真正的英雄。

黛维尊希特勒为历史上最伟大的对抗时间的人。她认为他是反对堕落的世界主义、资本主义和民主的旧欧洲部落原则的捍卫者。她钦佩的希特勒正是其他人所厌恶的——他的种族主义思想和反犹太主义。她对他宣扬的禁止雅利安人和犹太人结婚的法律表示赞赏，认为这些法律有助于复兴她所看到的印度种姓制度中体现的雅利安分离主义。古德里克-克拉克写道：

她认为希特勒的家庭谦逊、素食主义和戒酒是善良的禁欲主义者的典型特征。他在一个抵抗的堕落世界中对敌人无情地使用军事暴力，更不用说他毫不妥协地消灭犹太人这个古老的对手和英雄雅利安人的反面形象，这些都使他成为了本质上的“对抗时间的人”。[75]同上，第。 118。
（古德里克-克拉克，第 117-120 页。）

德维将希特勒描述为“他的人民的真正朋友”，“受到健康、美丽、和平世界的内心愿景的启发，这是一个反映宇宙完美的真正的人间天堂”。[76]引自 Goodrick-Clarke，第 119 页。

然后是希特勒自己的书， 我的奋斗。 “当我在俄勒冈州立大学时，”皮尔斯告诉我，“我读过 我的奋斗 这是第二次。我在本科的时候第一次读过它，但当时并没有真正打开一盏灯。不过，当我在俄勒冈州立大学再次读到它时，情况确实如此。这个人，希特勒，对事物的理解几乎和我一样，而且他在处理政治问题上是一个有天赋的人。尽管我知道我做不到他所做的那样：我与其他人关系不好，而且我不是一个演讲者。我仍然想知道我这一生到底能做什么。”

阿道夫·希特勒 (Adolf Hitler) 20 年 1889 月 XNUMX 日出生于上奥地利州因河畔布劳瑙 (Braunau am Inn) 的一个小镇。他因不成功被捕 政变 （政治叛乱）1923 年 XNUMX 月。希特勒口授 我的奋斗 （我的奋斗）当他在监狱里时。那时他三十多岁。 我的奋斗 该书分两卷出版，分别于 1925 年和 1926 年出版。这本书讲述了希特勒自己的一生，概述了国家社会主义的意识形态，并讲述了纳粹党的历史及其未来计划。 1933 年希特勒就任德国总理的几年前， 我的奋斗 成为畅销书——这并不是说有那么多德国人真正读过这本书。

我找到了一份 我的奋斗——我以前没有读过——然后浏览了一下。[77]阿道夫·希特勒， 我的奋斗 （波士顿：Houghton Mifflin Company，1981 年，最初出版于 1925 年）。 这是一本令人敬畏的巨著——两卷共 688 页。我不打算在这里回顾这本书的观点的优点；许多其他人也这样做了。在这几页中，我将尝试指出皮尔斯在其中看到的内容；我会看看 我的奋斗 从他的角度来看。我希望这样做将有助于解释皮尔斯和其他人认为希特勒的声明中有吸引力的内容。

首先，皮尔斯无疑看到了希特勒对 1920 年代德国社会的描述与他读这本书时的美国社会的相似之处。希特勒描述了德国“可怜的可怜的人类”。他认为当时的德国人在责任面前常常表现得很懦弱，对真正重要的事情三心二意，而且缺乏精神。[78]同上，第41，240页。
（阿道夫·希特勒， 我的奋斗 （波士顿：Houghton Mifflin Company，1981 年，最初出版于 1925 年）。） 希特勒认为，经济价值观和成见正在侵蚀他的人民：“随着经济生活逐渐成为国家的主宰，金钱成为所有人都必须侍奉、每个人都必须跪拜的神......堕落开始了：最恶毒的是，它开始的时候，这个国家正处于一个可能具有威胁性和关键性的时刻，需要最高的英雄态度。”[79]同上，p。 234。
（阿道夫·希特勒， 我的奋斗 （波士顿：Houghton Mifflin Company，1981 年，最初出版于 1925 年）。）

In 我的奋斗，希特勒谴责他所说的“大城市文明”。[80]同上，第。 254。
（阿道夫·希特勒， 我的奋斗 （波士顿：Houghton Mifflin Company，1981 年，最初出版于 1925 年）。） 城市非但没有丰富和增强文化中心，反而沦落为纯粹的人类居住区，即大量公寓和廉价公寓，人们居住在其中，彼此隔绝。城市只不过是购物和做生意的地方。人们从这里搬到那里，这削弱了他们之间的联系。[81]同上，第。 263。
（阿道夫·希特勒， 我的奋斗 （波士顿：Houghton Mifflin Company，1981 年，最初出版于 1925 年）。）

希特勒对他认为的德国文化衰落表示哀悼。他写道“当今环境的泥沼”。[82]同上，第。 255。
（阿道夫·希特勒， 我的奋斗 （波士顿：Houghton Mifflin Company，1981 年，最初出版于 1925 年）。） 他指出艺术的堕落：席勒、歌德和莎士比亚已经让位给了当时的低级产品。[83]同上，第259-260页。
（阿道夫·希特勒， 我的奋斗 （波士顿：Houghton Mifflin Company，1981 年，最初出版于 1925 年）。） 过去的文化形式正在被抹去。 “每一个新机构，”希特勒宣称，“越是不幸和悲惨，就会越加努力地消灭过去的最后痕迹……只有那些不能给世界带来任何有价值的东西，但却试图充当如果他们要给予天知道什么，他们会讨厌之前给予的一切，并且最想否定甚至摧毁它。”[84]同上，第。 260。
（阿道夫·希特勒， 我的奋斗 （波士顿：Houghton Mifflin Company，1981 年，最初出版于 1925 年）。） 强加给德国人民的东西——所谓的现代艺术就是一个典型的例子——与他们的精神格格不入，也与他们的伟大格格不入。他呼吁进行文化清洗。他认为，挑战在于确认反映人民最真实、最优秀特征的文化形式。

我确信皮尔斯与希特勒所描绘的社会负面形象有关 我的奋斗。希特勒描述了皮尔斯在 1950 世纪 60 年代和 XNUMX 年代在美国所看到的情况。因此，皮尔斯与希特勒对社会的看法有着本质上的一致，并且他对希特勒对正在发生的事情的排斥感产生了共鸣。

除了与希特勒总体观点的总体一致性之外，其中的具体主题和想法是什么？ 我的奋斗 这对皮尔斯来说是切中要害的吗？我相信它们就是我在下面概述的那些。

首先，有希特勒的 生物中心世界观。 《自然》杂志引用了希特勒的人生观。希特勒曾在 我的奋斗 首先，我们必须关注自然、生物世界及其环境。伙计，希特勒并不是脱离自然或凌驾于自然之上，而是自然的一部分。我们需要了解大自然的实际运作方式。我们的生活必须与自然保持一致 . 我们必须遵守自然法则。这就是我们如何最好地繁荣并实现我们作为众生的命运。我们不应该自以为是地认为我们可以忽视或克服自然的现实和自然的要求。我们需要学会以自然的方式生活。希特勒的基本信息是“滚出你的头脑”。摆脱幻想的智力化领域。摆脱你认为真实或应该真实的事情。相反，实际上是脚踏实地。

在这种以生物为中心的参考框架内，希特勒关注的是他所认为的人类基本现实：人类各族之间为生存和更高生存质量而进行的生死斗争。由于侵略和暴力是这场斗争所固有的；它们是自然之道不可分割的一部分。在最根本的层面上，人类的思想和行动对这场种族斗争的结果产生影响。人类事务中负责任和正确的事情，就是有利于一个民族的持续存在和向上发展。按照希特勒的说法，这就是按照自然规则和自然道德生活的意义。

希特勒坚持 种族的生物/文化概念。在他看来，种族与生物学、生理学、血液有关——就是这些。但这只是其中的一部分。种族还与文化有关：价值观和道德、哲学、传统、艺术表达方式、宗教取向、工作方式、政府形式、民族和种族认同、家庭安排、男性和女性观念、抚养孩子的方法，以及与地球的连接。种族不仅仅是遗传学。希特勒使用了“民间”一词（沃尔克 德语）来理解他指的是一个拥有共同生物遗传的民族 和 一种存在方式。他们有共同的生活方式和基因库。

希特勒的种族概念是一个动态的概念，因为他强调生物学和文化两个方面之间的相互作用。两者相互影响：生物现实或冲动塑造了一个民族的文化，同时，一个民族的文化也对其生物或物理本质产生影响。生物冲动（称之为本能）使人们倾向于以特定的方式生活。这并不是说个人和种族不能选择以违背这些敦促的方式行事，也不是说他们不能被世界中的外部力量（思想、人和情况）分散注意力。相反，它是为了断言存在一种比选择和社会条件更基本、更强大的力量。人类内心深处有一种召唤，一种根植于基因的偏爱，要求以某种方式、朝着某个方向前进，而这种召唤最终会获胜。就种族而言，这归根结底是希特勒相信种族之间的差异超越了肤色，并且他坚信必须超越对环境和文化的分析来解释不同种族的行为和成就。你必须考虑到对人类最强大的影响：生物遗传。

当希特勒讨论文化影响生物学的方式时，他关注的是文化对繁殖模式的影响。思想、价值观、交往模式等等都会影响特定种族中谁与谁生孩子，从而影响该种族的身体构成。最重要的是，文化因素影响种族成员与其他种族成员交配的频率。希特勒认为，种族杂交深刻影响着一个种族的生物组成。

与这一切相关的是 贵族原则。贵族原则可以与它的对立面——平等原则进行对比。简而言之，贵族原则是指有些人天生就比其他人优秀；有些人天生就比其他人优秀；有些人天生就比其他人优秀。人类之间存在质的差异。将人仅仅视为人就是对种族法的无知。[85]希特勒，p。 397. 希特勒认为，种族和个人不是平等的，而是等级秩序的。他写道“自然的基本贵族观念……不仅看到种族的不同价值，而且看到个人的不同价值。”[86]同上，第。 383。
（希特勒，第 397 页。） 在安排集体生活事务时，无论是政治或经济安排、教育、个人和群体关系还是其他任何事情，都必须切实考虑到这些不同的价值观。希特勒说，虽然有些人可能会被个人和种族彼此平等或可能平等的观念所吸引，但事实是，它们现在并不平等，将来也不会平等，除非有更优秀的人。以某种方式使他们陷入困境，以便使他们回到比他们低等的水平。

希特勒对种族的假设导致他警告 异族通婚的危险。他最关心的是跨种族生育，或者换句话说，种族混合。种族混合损害了两个种族的优势：它在身体、智力和精神上降低了较好种族的水平。希特勒不雅地说，大自然不爱私生子。他声称，那些混合种族背景的人的文化和精神力量都会减弱。他们的力量和决心比“纯股票”的人要少。希特勒认为种族跨越与人类提高素质的宏伟计划背道而驰。 “大自然不希望高等种族和低等种族混合，因为高等育种的工作将会被毁掉，”他写道。[87]同上，第。 286。
（希特勒，第 397 页。） 希特勒认为，“任何不在同一水平上的两个生物的杂交，都会在两个父母的水平之间产生一个中间体……这种交配违背了所有生命更高级繁殖的自然意志。”[88]同上，第。 285。
（希特勒，第 397 页。） 后来在 我的奋斗 他指出，“种族粥”将阻碍人类最高目标的实现，这是自然固有的目标：人类进化为更高的存在形式。[89]同上，第。 397。
（希特勒，第 397 页。）

人们听到很多关于雅利安人作为 大师赛。对这一概念的考虑取决于“主人”一词的含义。 Master可以指对他人的掌握，即对他人的支配和控制。商船的船长是控制船上人员和货物的人。然而，“大师”一词也有另一个含义：它可以指最优秀的人，指那些已经精通自己所做的事情的人。例如，木匠大师或电工大师不统治其他商人。相反，他们是 世界上最好的是， 最好的 在他们的领域中，最有知识和技能的人。因此，存在这样的问题：在这种情况下，优等种族是指一个种族对其他种族的统治，还是指那些按照某种标准（智力、性格、创造性产出，获得对自己的最大掌控，无论什么）最优秀的人。标准）。

我找不到实例 我的奋斗 希特勒使用了“优等种族”一词，但在我看来，他在种族方面使用了“优等者”的概念，其含义有我列出的两种含义，即，指那些按照某种标准是最优秀的人，以及指那些以某种标准衡量最优秀的人。对他人的支配。事实上，他融合了这两个想法：雅利安人是最好的， 因此 应该对他人行使支配地位。他所说的最好的意思是雅利安人具有最强的遗传和文化特征。在大自然中——按照他的思维方式，大自然的规则应该占上风——最强者应该占据主导地位。他写道：“[国家社会主义]绝不相信种族平等……并感到自己有义务……促进更好和更强的人的胜利，并要求劣等和弱者的服从……”[90]这摘自以下引文 我的奋斗 皮尔斯在他为自己的期刊撰写的社论中写道：威廉·皮尔斯，“社论”， 国家社会主义世界， 不。 2，1966 年秋季，第 9 页。

这仍然留下一个问题： 申请 统治地位是要夺取的。统治是否意味着告诉被统治的一个或多个种族在生活的各个方面应该做什么？或者说，它是否意味着狭义上的统治或统治种族能够从被征服的种族那里获取一切必要的东西、每一种资源，以便统治种族能够在其进化道路上尽可能快地前进。越远越好？我的阅读 我的奋斗 希特勒的重点是后一种意义上的统治：也就是说，能够获得其他人所拥有的一切，以继续前进。希特勒说：“我们都感觉到，在遥远的未来，人类必须面临一些问题，只有最高级的种族成为主人，并得到整个地球的手段和可能性的支持，才有能力克服这些问题。”[91]同上。
（这摘自以下引文 我的奋斗 皮尔斯在他为自己的期刊撰写的社论中写道：威廉·皮尔斯，“社论”， 国家社会主义世界， 不。 2，1966 年秋季，第 9 页。） 然后在其他地方：“因此，民间的生命哲学对应于自然最内在的意志，因为它恢复了力量的自由发挥……直到最后人类最优秀的人，在实现了对这个地球的占有之后，将拥有一条自由的道路活动…。”[92]希特勒，第 383-384 页。 在我看来，这听起来像是一种“获得你需要的任何东西”的统治形式。

希特勒认为，雅利安人在事物发展计划中占据应有的地位，一切都岌岌可危。他夸张地写道：“错误判断和无视种族法律的人……阻碍了最优秀种族的胜利进程，从而阻碍了所有人类进步的先决条件，并因此仍然背负着人类在动物中的所有情感。无助的苦难境界。”[93]同上，第。 289。
（希特勒，第 383-384 页。） 后来在 我的奋斗 他戏剧性地补充道：“这片大陆上的人类文化和文明与雅利安人的存在密不可分。如果他消亡或衰落，一个没有文化的时代的黑暗面纱将再次降临在这个地球上。”[94]同上，第。 383。
（希特勒，第 383-384 页。）

In 我的奋斗 希特勒表示 对雅利安人种命运的担忧。希特勒说，雅利安人种不与其他人种混杂尤为重要，因为它体现了人类最高的可能性。希特勒写道，雅利安人种面临的危险是，它将被一个“新民族”所取代，一个“精神和文化地位严重下降”的民族。[95]同上，第。 400。
（希特勒，第 383-384 页。） 希特勒坚持说：“强者必须占主导地位，而不是与弱者混合，从而牺牲自己的伟大。”[96]同上，第。 285。
（希特勒，第 383-384 页。） 而在其他地方 我的奋斗：“在一个私生子和黑人化的世界里，所有人类美丽和崇高的概念，以及所有关于人类理想化未来的想法，都将永远消失。”[97]同上，第。 383。
（希特勒，第 383-384 页。）

希特勒宣称：“雅利安人的血统与低等民族的血统的每一次混合，其结果都是有文化的民族的终结。”[98]同上，第。 286。
（希特勒，第 383-384 页。） 他用北美的经验来说明他的观点。他宣称：“北美的人口中日耳曼人占了迄今为止最大的比例，他们与低等有色人种混居甚少，显示出与中美洲和南美洲不同的人性和文化，而中美洲和南美洲主要是拉丁裔移民，他们经常与中美洲和南美洲混居。”与原住民大规模地接触。通过这个例子，我们可以清楚地认识到种族混合的影响。”[99]同上。
（希特勒，第 383-384 页。）

在评估个人的精神状态和动机时，希特勒采用了以下基本区别： 唯心主义 和 利己主义。理想主义旨在为人民、种族服务。利己主义从狭隘的自利角度看待事物，没有与亲属社区的联系感和对他们福利的承诺。在希特勒的心目中，理想主义显然比利己主义更受青睐。理想主义者比利己主义者或个人主义者更值得称赞。希特勒写道：

这种将自我利益置于社区保护之上的心态，实际上是每一种真正的人类文化的首要前提。仅从它就可以产生人类所有伟大的作品，这些作品给创始人带来的回报很少，但却给子孙后代带来了最丰富的祝福。是的，单从这一点我们就能明白，为什么这么多人能够忠实地忍受匮乏的生活，这种生活除了贫穷和节俭之外什么也没有，但却为社会提供了生存的基础。每一个工人、每一个农民、每一个发明家、官员等，他们的工作却无法为自己获得任何幸福或繁荣，都是这一崇高思想的代表……。[100]同上，第。 298。
（希特勒，第 383-384 页。）

希特勒断言 种族需要成为个人和集体关注的中心， 和 必须优先考虑保持种族纯正。 “只有一项最神圣的人权，”他宣称，“这项权利同时也是最神圣的义务……确保血液保持纯净，并通过保留最好的人性，创造一种可能这些生物的更高尚的发展。”[101]同上，第。 402。
（希特勒，第 383-384 页。） 希特勒警告说：“过去所有伟大的文化都消亡了，只是因为最初具有创造力的种族死于血液中毒。这种衰落的最终原因是他们忘记了所有文化都依赖于人，而不是相反；因此，为了保护某种文化，必须保护创造它的人。”[102]同上，第。 289。
（希特勒，第 383-384 页。）

由于希特勒将生活视为一场斗争， 支持比赛将涉及战斗.

我们必须争取的是维护我们的种族和我们的人民的存在和繁衍[在这里他似乎区分种族和人民，而在其他时候他将它们等同起来]，我们孩子的生计和我们血液的纯洁......这保存与严格的必要性法则以及这个世界上最优秀和更强的人的胜利权紧密相连。那些想活下去的人，就让他们去战斗，那些不想战斗的人，在这个永恒斗争的世界里，不配活下去。即使那很困难——那就是这样！”[103]皮尔斯，p。 9.

与其他所有社会机构一样， 国家为比赛服务。也就是说，国家是维持和改善种族的手段。国家通过促进种族中最高贵和最强大的元素的胜利并要求劣等和弱者的服从来支持自然的贵族观念。以下内容摘自 我的奋斗 表明希特勒对国家角色的看法：

国家是达到目的的手段。其目的在于保护和发展生理和心理同质的生物群落。国家是器皿，种族是其内容。[104]同上，第。 393。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。）

 

民俗国家的最高目的是关心保护那些赋予文化并创造高级人类的美丽和尊严的原始种族元素。我们，作为雅利安人，只能将国家视为一个民族的活生生的有机体，它不仅确保这个民族的保存，而且通过其精神和理想能力的发展引导其走向最高的自由。[105]同上，第。 394。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。）

 

一个坏国家肯定能够通过允许甚至促进种族文化承载者的毁灭来杀死原本存在的能力。[106]同上，第。 395。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。）

希特勒认为，国家的统治权必须掌握在最优秀的个人、最聪明、最有效率的人手中。考虑到种族生存和进步的目标，政治进程的设计必须能够识别出最优秀的人才，然后让他们获得“职位和尊严”。[107]同上，第。 431。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。） 希特勒坚信大众民主是 不能 实现这一点的最佳方式。应该由最优秀的人负责，而不是由群众负责。希特勒并没有确认民主多数的统治，而是确认了 人格法则，也就是说，通过相当于自然选择的过程来控制的伟人。[108]同上，第446-447页。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。）

在世界历史上，真正超越普遍标准的人通常会亲自宣布自己。[109]同上，第。 88。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。）

 

一种努力拒绝民主大众观念、把这个地球交给最优秀的人民——即最高人性的生活哲学——必须在逻辑上服从这个人民内部的贵族原则，并确保这个人民的领导权和最高影响力。落入最好的头脑。因此，它不是建立在大多数人的观念之上，而是建立在个性的观念之上。[110]同上，第。 443。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。）

希特勒声称，在除政治以外的所有生活领域——商业、军事和其他领域——人们普遍认为，最优秀的人需要负责，而不是通过投票来决定谁是最优秀的人。[111]同上，第。 447。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。） 希特勒表示，许多人对民主选举的结果抱有错误的信心：“骆驼穿过针眼，比选举‘发现’伟人还早。”[112]同上，第。 88。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。）

另一个想法在 我的奋斗 是 以养育子女为核心的家庭是社会的核心要素。其他一切都围绕着家庭进行，并有助于增强家庭的功能。在民间国家——以共同的生物和文化遗产和命运为中心的国家——婚姻需要成为“神圣的机构”，而孩子是“人民最宝贵的财富”。[113]同上，第。 403。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。） 首先，婚姻并不是增进当事人幸福和福祉的手段，而是与其他社会制度一样，是维护和改善种族的手段。[114]同上，第。 252。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。）

希特勒呼吁 控制繁殖 作为提高比赛质量的一种方式。这个过程的词是：优生学。

它（国家社会主义国家）必须确保只有健康的人才能生育孩子；只有一种耻辱：不顾自己的疾病和缺陷，把孩子带到这个世界上；以及一项最高荣誉：放弃这样做。相反，将健康的儿童拒之门外必须受到谴责。在这里，国家必须充当千禧年未来的守护者，面对这个未来，个人的愿望和自私必须显得虚无并屈服……那些身心不健康和有价值的人不得让他们的身体缺陷永久存在他们的孩子。在这方面，国家社会主义国家必须承担最艰巨的教育任务。总有一天，这似乎是比我们当前平庸时代最胜利的战争更伟大的事迹……最后，在国家社会主义国家，国家社会主义的生活哲学必须成功地实现人类不再是一个更高尚的时代。关心的是狗、马和猫的繁殖，但在提升人类自身的过程中，在这个时代，一个人明知而默默地放弃，另一个人则快乐地牺牲和给予……。[115]同上，p。 403-405。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。）

希特勒呼吁 贵族教育。他批评德国学校过于注重“纯知识”而忽视个人品格的发展。他谴责他所称的“半教育”，这种教育向年轻人灌输了一定的知识，但同时也使他们脱离了自然、本能以及与自身以外的事物的联系。他声称，当时学校里的学生很少或根本不知道责任的乐趣。他称学生“充满了知识和智慧，但缺乏任何健康的本能，缺乏所有的活力和勇气”。[116]同上，第。 432。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。） 他说，德国的教育体系正在培养意志薄弱、缺乏力量和果断的人。学校培养的不是坚强勇敢的男女，而是“聪明的弱者”和“懦弱的身体退化者”。[117]同上，第 237、244-245、407-408 页。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。）

希特勒崇尚希腊的教育理想，即培养高尚的灵魂、美丽的身体和聪明的头脑。他呼吁，要注重培养坚定的品格，特别是自信、意志力、决心和责任感。

希特勒恳求道，不要堆砌材料。帮助学生获得他们作为个人实际需要的材料，这将使社区受益。这必然包括适合特定学生的专门培训。[118]同上，第 414、419、421-423 页。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。）

希特勒强调对自然的研究，以便学生学会理解和尊重自然，并按照自然法则生活：“一个人决不能陷入疯狂，相信自己真的成为了自然的主宰和主人——这是如此很容易被半学历的自负所诱导；他必须理解自然统治的根本必要性，并认识到他的存在在多大程度上受到这些永恒斗争和向上斗争的法则的影响。”[119]同上，第。 245。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。）

希特勒主张关注罗马和希腊遗产的历史，以便学生找到为其继续存在做出贡献的动力：“特别是在历史教学中，我们决不能阻止对古代的研究。以极其广泛的轮廓正确构想的罗马历史现在是并且仍然是最好的导师，不仅在今天，而且可能永远都是最好的导师。希腊的文化理想也应该以其堪称典范的美丽而为我们保留下来。”[120]同上，第。 423。
（皮尔斯，第 9 页。）

希特勒呼吁发展种族意识。他说，教育必须：

将种族意识和种族情感烧入本能和智力，烧入赋予它的年轻人的心灵和大脑。如果没有最终认识到血液纯度的必要性和本质，任何男孩和女孩都不得离开学校。因此，通过保护我们国家的种族基础来奠定基础，并通过它们反过来确保其未来文化发展的基础。因为，归根结底，如果一个人准备好并决心在原则上保护自己和他的特殊本性，那么所有的体力和智力训练都将毫无价值。[121]皮尔斯，p。 10.

希特勒肯定了强有力的体能训练计划对“钢铁般的”年轻人身体的价值。[122]希特勒，p。 254. 他特别主张将一项运动纳入其中，他承认许多人认为这项运动粗俗且有失尊严：拳击：

没有任何一项运动能像这项运动那样提倡进攻精神，要求闪电般的决策，并训练身体钢铁般的灵活性。两个人用拳头解决意见分歧并不比用一块磨铁的铁块（他指的是击剑运动）更粗俗。如果一个受到攻击的人用拳头自卫，而不是逃跑并大喊警察，这也同样是高尚的行为。[123]同上，第。 410。
（希特勒，第 254 页。）

希特勒认为拳击是一种教导年轻人承受打击并继续前进的方法。

希特勒希望避免教育“审美家群体”，这一愿望不仅适用于男孩，也适用于女孩。[124]同上，p。 414
（希特勒，第 254 页。） 他重视男孩和女孩充满活力的健康和钢铁般的身体素质。他希望男孩和女孩都坚强、敏捷、大胆、勇敢，能够忍受困难并取得胜利。因此，他主张像男孩一样重视女孩的体能训练。但与此同时，希特勒认为两性之间存在着固有的、互补的差异，因而男孩和女孩体育锻炼的最终目的是不同的。他区分了男性的力量和女性的力量，男性的力量是在世界上强有力地生活并成为一个好父亲，而女性的力量是生育和养育健康而有活力的孩子，成为一个好妻子，创造和维持一个美好的家庭。希特勒认为未来的母亲——他认为这对于职业教育或政治生活同样重要——是女性教育的主要目标。[125]同上。
（希特勒，第 254 页。）

希特勒相信 犹太人阻碍了他实现的一切目标。 犹太人是他的敌人。当时他对犹太人在德国的存在和影响有什么反对意见？

• 犹太人疏远自然。他们寻求征服自然，而不是按照自然生活。希特勒认为，鉴于自然秩序的真实现实，现代、和平主义、人道的犹太观点是“无稽之谈”。[126]同上，第。 287。
  （希特勒，第 254 页。）
• 犹太人破坏政治制度。犹太人提倡民主，排除个性，代之以“对数字的盲目崇拜”（多数人统治）。

犹太教义……拒绝自然的贵族原则，并用数量及其自重取代了权力和力量的永恒特权。这否定了人的人格价值，质疑了民族和种族的意义，从而从人类的存在和文化的前提中抽离出来。作为宇宙的基础，这一学说将导致人类理智上可以想象的任何秩序的终结。因为，在这个最伟大的可识别的生物体中，应用这样的法则的结果只能是混乱，在地球上，它只能对这个星球的居民造成毁灭。[127]同上。 页。 65。
（希特勒，第 254 页。）

希特勒将 1917 年俄罗斯布尔什维克革命视为犹太人对该国的接管以及犹太教义的胜利。[128]同上，第。 326。
（希特勒，第 254 页。）

• 犹太人控制了德国的金融、商业和关键行业，并利用这一地位以牺牲人民的普遍福利为代价来服务自己的利益。[129]同上，第 309、639、193 页。
  （希特勒，第 254 页。）
• 犹太人利用其经济实力在政府中获得不当影响力，以实现自己的野心。[130]同上。
  （希特勒，第 254 页。）
• 犹太人正在通过促进异族通婚来摧毁欧洲白人的种族基础。他们这样做是因为他们的基本怨恨态度，并且因为他们的利益不是必须与一个强壮的白人打交道，而是与一个“摇摇欲坠的牛群”打交道。希特勒写道，犹太人最想把黑人带到莱茵兰，其秘密目的是种族混合，而种族混合是肯定会发生的。希特勒说，如果他们得逞，犹太人就会把欧洲人民变成没有种族的混蛋。[131]同上，第 315、322、325、625 页。
  （希特勒，第 254 页。）
• 犹太人助长了文化的衰落。他们是贬低社会的“现代”的代言人。他们嘲笑基督教，并认为传统伦理和道德已经过时，这使得外邦人（非犹太人）随波逐流。在政治领域，犹太人“拒绝为国家提供自我保护的手段，摧毁对领导层的信心，嘲笑历史和过去，把一切伟大的东西扔进阴沟”。[132]同上，第。 326。
  （希特勒，第 254 页。） 希特勒声称，犹太人“污染了艺术、文学和戏剧，嘲笑了民族感情，并推翻了所有关于美和崇高、高贵和善良的概念。”[133]同上。
  （希特勒，第 254 页。） 希特勒说：“在大众娱乐、艺术垃圾、恶习或色情等一切卑鄙和挥霍的事物中，肯定会有犹太人。”[134]同上，第。 57。
  （希特勒，第 254 页。）

希特勒的榜样和言论似乎对皮尔斯产生了五个主要影响。首先，他们鼓励发展一种意识形态身份——国家社会主义者。其次，他们把他推向一个焦点：种族。第三，他们帮助确定了他的对手是谁：犹太人。第四，他们使他对这个对手的对抗合法化。第四个——使他对犹太人的对抗合法化——尤其重要，因为在二战后时期，公开甚至私下批评和反对犹太人和犹太人利益的想法几乎被每个人认为是超越的。可接受的境界。在我们这个时代，受人尊敬的人甚至不会想到采取这样的姿态。然而，皮尔斯发现阿道夫·希特勒非常令人钦佩，他就是为了做到这一点，而且是公开而自豪地做到这一点。在 我的奋斗希特勒这样描述自己：“我不再是一个软弱的世界主义者，而是一个反犹太主义者。”[135]同上，第。 64。
（希特勒，第 254 页。） 如果像希特勒这样真正杰出的人可能是反犹太主义者，那么威廉·L·皮尔斯也可能是反犹太主义者。对皮尔斯的第五个主要影响是，希特勒的个人榜样向他表明，你可以认真对待你的生活，并将其植根于与种族福祉相关的宏伟目标，并付出你的一切来实现它。这就是皮尔斯所做的。

皮尔斯第一次涉足政坛是在 1962 年加入一个名为约翰·伯奇协会 (John Birch Society) 的组织。“我在俄勒冈州立大学时读过一些约翰·伯奇协会的文献，”皮尔斯告诉我，“我知道至少他们是反共的。” 。他们认为自己的工作是反对共产主义者在美国政府和社会中的影响。我同意他们的观点，即共产主义是一件非常糟糕的事情，它对美国人的生活构成了真正的威胁。于是我加入了白桦协会。校园里的一位保守派同事引导我去科瓦利斯（俄勒冈州）设立一个分会。”

皮尔斯提到的约翰·伯奇协会过去是——现在仍然是，该组织仍然存在——一个致力于对抗共产主义和促进各种右翼事业的草根组织。[136]有关桦木协会的背景，请参阅 Gerald Schomp， 桦木主义是我的事 （纽约：麦克米伦（Macmillan），1970年）。 60 世纪 XNUMX 年代初，皮尔斯参与其中时，桦木协会在全国拥有约 XNUMX 名会员，正处于鼎盛时期。协会成员被分成七到二十五名成员的分会，分会的领导者在部门领导的监督下开展工作，部门领导又向国家协调员报告。皮尔斯加入的正是这些分会之一。

Birch Society 于 1958 年由一位退休的波士顿糖果制造商、曾任全国制造商协会副主席的 Robert Welch, Jr. 创立。Welch 毕业于北卡罗来纳大学（据说当时只有 XNUMX 岁），曾就读于哈佛法学院，然后加入了哥哥的糖果生意并发了财。在桦树协会的成立大会上，韦尔奇向他召集到印第安纳波利斯一家汽车旅馆的十一位朋友发表了演讲，概述了这个新组织的性质和目的——本质上是为了将美国从共产主义手中拯救出来。这篇讲话被打印出来并称为 蓝皮书 并成为该组织的圣经。

韦尔奇以浸信会传教士约翰·伯奇上尉的名字命名了他的组织，他于 1945 年，即第二次世界大战结束十天后，被中国共产党枪杀和刺死。韦尔奇认为，这使得伯奇成为冷战时期针对共产党的第一个受害者。

基本上，桦木协会是一个致力于改变美国思维模式的教育组织。该公司一度拥有 250 名员工。该协会出版了两本杂志，有一个图书出版业务，出售海报、保险杠贴纸、磁带和小册子，出版报纸广告并播放广播和电视节目，有一个名为“ 你在听山姆大叔吗？，并运营着世界上最大的演讲局。该协会在全盛时期所从事的一些具体事业是在越南取得迅速而决定性的胜利；打击民权运动，它认为民权运动是由共产党控制的；让这个国家退出联合国；废除联邦所得税和联邦储备系统；弹劾最高法院首席大法官厄尔·沃伦；设立“支持当地警察”委员会；并反对学校的性教育。

该协会因容忍甚至可能鼓励反犹太主义和种族主义成员而闻名，只要他们不直言不讳地表达自己的观点，从而使该组织感到尴尬。尽管该协会自称是犹太人民的朋友，但当韦尔奇谈到“内部阴谋”时，许多人留下的印象是他指的是犹太复国主义者和共产党人。当伯彻斯谈到“大笔金钱利益”时，普遍的共识是这是犹太人的代号。没过多久，伯奇协会就成为美国三K党这一边最受诽谤的组织。反诽谤联盟称他们为“法西斯分子”、“人格杀手”和“右翼危险分子”。

韦尔奇出版了一本书，称德怀特·艾森豪威尔是“忠诚、有意识的共产主义阴谋代理人”，并对乔治·马歇尔将军、国务卿约翰·福斯特·杜勒斯和最高法院等受人尊敬的美国人提出了类似的指控，这似乎走入了深渊。法院法官威廉·布伦南。[137]约翰·乔治和莱尔德·威尔科克斯， 纳粹分子、共产党人、三K党成员和其他边缘人士 （纽约州布法罗：普罗米修斯，1992 年），第 217 页。 XNUMX. 右翼政治英雄巴里·戈德华特 (Barry Goldwater) 称韦尔奇“无节制且不明智”，并批评他发表“具有破坏性、荒谬且非常愚蠢的言论”。随着时间的推移，协会越来越失去信誉。韦尔奇于 1985 年去世，该协会如今以虚拟匿名方式开展活动。

“你的桦木协会会员资格是你的第一个真正的政治活动。你跟他们呆了多久？”我问皮尔斯。

“一点也不长——只是几次会议，”皮尔斯回答道。 “我发现他们并不愿意处理一些我认为重要的问题。他们反对民权革命，但他们不会在种族基础上处理它。他们从共产主义煽动者煽动黑人（当时人们对黑人的称呼）的角度来看待这个问题。共产主义确实是民权运动的重要组成部分。共产党人确实抓住了它。但民权活动的根本意义在于种族而非政治。但当我向桦树协会的人们提出这个问题时，他们不愿意靠近。

“如果伯彻夫妇要强调民权运动的共产主义方面，为什么他们不愿意看看这些共产主义者到底是谁？我对他们说：‘为什么我们不正视这些人大多是犹太人的事实呢？如果不了解自卡尔·马克思以来犹太人在共产主义中的角色，你怎么能理解共产主义呢？如果没有犹太人，俄罗斯的布尔什维克革命永远不会取得进展。如果你看看这个国家的共产党人和他们的支持者，他们主要是犹太人。我问他们，为什么报纸上同情民权议程的专栏作家往往是犹太人？全国有色人种协进会的领导人一直是犹太人。显然，如果犹太人撤回支持，民权运动就会崩溃。

“他们立即扑向我。 “哦，不，”他们说，“格斯·霍尔（时任美国共产党领导人）不是犹太人。”[霍尔出生于明尼苏达州，是芬兰移民的儿子——真名阿尔沃·库斯塔·哈尔伯格.] 他们不会碰它。他们害怕被贴上反犹太主义的标签。或者韦尔奇认为，从战略角度来看，最好避免黑人和犹太人的情感问题，而只关注共产主义。不管发生了什么，我参加了三四次会议，并对自己说‘这些人不会有任何进展’，三个月后我就辞职了。

“如果桦木协会愿意处理种族和犹太人问题，这对我来说是最重要的两个问题，我可能会愿意和他们在一起。但事实上，他们不会让我认为必须有人正面解决这些问题。必须有人将它们公开。我想我的性格是比较固执的。我更加确信反战和民权运动的资金太充足，对人们的思想产生了太大的影响，我必须以某种方式处理这个问题。

“我开始给任何引起我注意的人写信。我可能写信给十几个人。这是一次偶然的活动。我写信给一群不拘一格的人。我会问他们认为应对反战和民权运动的最佳方式是什么。我问他们认为有关人员应该做什么，以及他们是否可以引导我去找其他我可以联系的人，在某些情况下，我确实这样做了。我记得我写过的一个人是一位保守派人士，名叫丹·斯穆特。他是前联邦调查局特工，拥有一个广播节目。有人说“你应该听丹·斯穆特的声音，他听起来很像你。”所以我听了他的节目并给他写了一封信。

“有一天，大约是 1963 年，”皮尔斯告诉我，“我在电视上看新闻，看到了乔治·林肯·洛克威尔的一段剪辑。时间很短，二十、三十秒左右。罗克韦尔当时试图在圣地亚哥向一群大学生发表演讲，他们大声喊叫他，并向他扔瓶子。 [罗克韦尔于 1962 年 XNUMX 月在圣地亚哥州立大学发表演讲，因此皮尔斯可能就是在那一年看到了新闻片段。[138]威廉·施马尔茨, 仇恨：乔治·林肯·洛克威尔和美国纳粹党 （赫恩登，弗吉尼亚州：Batsford Brassey，1998 年），第 136 页。 XNUMX.] “滚回德国吧，你这个纳粹混蛋！”之类的话。尽管发生了这一切，罗克韦尔还是说了两三句话，然后观众冲上台并撕下了他的麦克风，我对自己说，“你知道，他基本上是对的。”所以我去了图书馆查找了罗克韦尔的地址并给他写了一封信。大约两周后，我收到了他的一份很长的手写答复，大约有十几页。罗克韦尔自称是国家社会主义者，甚至在我与他取得联系之前，我就已经决定我就是这样的人。尽管我认为罗克韦尔也许只是一个小丑。他在华盛顿特区工作，那里安排了一场物理会议，所以我利用这个机会去和他交谈。”

1964 年，威廉·皮尔斯 (William Pierce) 在华盛顿与乔治·林肯·洛克威尔 (George Lincoln Rockwell) 会面，从此开始了一段对皮尔斯一生产生深远影响的交往。当皮尔斯联系罗克韦尔时，他是一个身材高大、苗条、黑发、英俊的小伙子，四十多岁。他自称为美国纳粹党的指挥官，他创立了该党，总部设在华盛顿特区郊外的弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿。据估计，罗克韦尔在他的组织中有大约一百名活跃成员，还有数百名订阅者对于他的出版物， 突击兵 和 罗克韦尔报告。洛克威尔有着自信而傲慢的公众形象，用玉米芯烟斗塑造出潇洒、潇洒的形象，并倾向于以演艺界的方式处理事情。他的公开集会，他像希特勒一样穿着棕色制服和靴子，戴着纳粹十字记号臂章，用罗马礼向他的追随者致意，周围是“冲锋队”和美国和纳粹旗帜，这既具有戏剧性，又——许多——这是一种令人恐惧的品质。罗克韦尔在演讲中谴责犹太人支持共产主义，并策划通过促进种族融合和与黑人杂交来使美国种族混杂。他呼吁由美国出资将非洲的美国黑人重新安置在一个新的非洲国家。[139]有关罗克韦尔的传记信息，请参阅尼古拉斯·古德里克·克拉克 (Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke)， 希特勒的女祭司：萨维特里·德维、印度教-雅利安神话和新纳粹主义 （纽约：纽约大学出版社，1998 年），第 197-199、205-206 页。

为了让人了解罗克韦尔的风格（严肃，但仍然有点半开玩笑），以回应 1961 年所谓的“自由乘车”，民权活动人士在南方乘坐公共汽车整合州际巴士旅行，罗克韦尔他有自己的“仇恨巴士”，他和他的一些成员驾驶这辆巴士穿过南方。[140]威廉·施马尔茨, 仇恨：乔治·林肯·洛克威尔和美国纳粹党 （弗吉尼亚州赫恩登：Batsford Brassey，1998 年），第 115 页。 另一个例子，显然是针对犹太人在精神分析学家和治疗师中的强大存在，罗克韦尔出版了一本小册子，他说这本小册子提供了如何对抗“犹太人的心理健康攻击”的说明。[141]约翰·乔治和莱尔德·威尔科克斯， 纳粹分子、共产主义者、三K党成员和其他人 边缘地带 （纽约州布法罗：普罗米修斯图书，1992 年），第 356 页。 XNUMX. 然后是他的小册子《安·芬克日记》。[142]施马尔茨，p。 180.

乔治·林肯·洛克威尔 1918 年出生于伊利诺伊州布卢明顿。[143]请参阅“花花公子访谈：乔治·林肯·洛克威尔”中的洛克威尔传记概述， 花花公子，卷。 13，1966 年 71 月，第 72-XNUMX 页。 他是杂耍喜剧演员“Doc”洛克威尔的两个儿子中最大的一个。罗克韦尔的父母在他年轻时就离婚了，他的童年时光在伊利诺伊州乡村的母亲和缅因州、新泽西州和罗德岛州的父亲之间来回穿梭。 1938 年，他进入布朗大学，主要研究哲学、社会科学，据一些报道，还研究恶作剧。在布朗大学，他开始在政治上转向右翼，反抗他所研究的社会科学和教授的自由主义、平等主义倾向。他开始将自由主义视为“共产主义的拉皮条的小妹妹”。[144]古德里克-克拉克，第 197 页。 大二后，他从布朗大学退学，加入美国海军，并在第二次世界大战期间担任海军飞行员。 1944 年 XNUMX 月，罗克韦尔在入侵南太平洋关岛时指挥海军空中支援。

1943年，罗克韦尔与他在布朗大学认识的一位女士结婚。这是两段婚姻中的第一段，总共生育了七个孩子。两段婚姻均以离婚告终。 1945 年退役后，罗克韦尔和他的第一任妻子在缅因州定居，在那里他以标牌画家和自由摄影师的身份勉强维持生计。然后，他开始从事商业艺术事业，并举家搬到纽约市，并在普拉特设计学院学习。事实证明，罗克韦尔在这一新领域具有相当的天赋，并因他为美国癌症协会设计的广告而获得了重大奖项。然而，他放弃了艺术，回到缅因州创办了一家广告公司，但很快就破产了。

1950 年朝鲜战争爆发后，罗克韦尔被召回现役，并在圣地亚哥的海军基地训练战斗机飞行员。在圣地亚哥期间，他结识了一对已婚夫妇，他们也坚信道格拉斯·麦克阿瑟将军应该竞选总统。妻子向他提供了一些包含反犹太材料的右翼小册子。罗克韦尔发现这些材料很有趣——种子已经种下了。 1952 年，当他被调往冰岛时，他将妻子和三个女儿留在了圣地亚哥。一年之内，他离婚并与冰岛驻美国大使的侄女再婚。[145]乔治和威尔科克斯，p。 355.

1950 世纪 XNUMX 年代是麦卡锡时代，以威斯康星州参议员约瑟夫·麦卡锡 (Joseph McCarthy) 的名字命名，麦卡锡声称美国政府中有大量共产党人担任高级职位。在此期间，这个国家普遍存在反共歇斯底里的情绪。人们担心共产主义者正在渗透到美国生活的各个方面，从政府到大学，从工会到电影业。罗克韦尔本人确信社会上有些东西不正常，并且正在发生一些有趣的事情，但他后来回忆说，真正让他集中注意力的是当他买了一本希特勒的书时 我的奋斗 在一家二手书店，发现自己“惊呆了”并“被催眠了”：

[在 我的奋斗] 我发现了充足的“精神阳光”，它突然使所有灰色的世界沐浴在理性和理解的清晰光芒中。一字一句、一句一句的启示，如惊雷闪电般刺入黑暗，撕裂、撕裂了三十多年黑暗的蛛网，辉煌地揭示了这个疯狂世界中迄今为止无法穿透的黑暗的奥秘。我被惊呆了，被催眠了……我想知道它的完全、难以形容的天才……。[146]古德里克-克拉克，第 197-198 页。

从那时起，罗克韦尔知道了他的信仰：国家社会主义。

1954 年，洛克威尔第二次海军服役结束后，他定居在华盛顿特区，并在那里创办了一本为服役妻子编写的杂志，名为《 美国女士。由于财务压力，他在出版了几期后被迫出售杂志业务。随后，他与妻子一起踏上了旅行推销员的道路。他的这项努力也没有取得巨大成功，最终在华盛顿陷入了困境，他妻子的收入勉强维持了餐桌上的食物。[147]花花公子 采访，第 71-72 页。

罗克韦尔曾一度活跃于保守派政治团体中。然后，他和一位富有的赞助人哈罗德·N·阿罗史密斯（Harold N. Arrowsmith）成立了“将美国从犹太人的统治下解放出来”全国委员会，并将总部设在弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿。这个新组织的第一个正式行动是举着“SAVE IKE FROM THE KIKES”等标语在白宫设置纠察线。[148]施马尔茨，p。 33. （艾森豪威尔总统的昵称是艾克。）不久之后，罗克韦尔与阿罗史密斯决裂，成立了美国纳粹党。他向十一名或十二名新兵发放了制服和纳粹党徽，并将他们安置在他称之为“仇恨贩子山”的军营里。[149]古德里克-克拉克，第 198-199 页。 罗克韦尔和他的部队穿着棕色衬衫和靴子，挥舞着鲁格手枪，在总部大摇大摆地互相“欢呼”。从那时起，罗克韦尔便开始了他余生的活动，直到 1967 年 XNUMX 月他被暗杀为止——他进行了鲁莽的活动，以唤醒他认为沉睡和消极的美国公众对犹太人相互交织的问题的认识。和黑人。

当亚特兰大的一座犹太教堂被炸毁时，几篇报纸文章提到了罗克韦尔，他的总部成为砖头、燃烧弹、警察突袭和死亡威胁的目标。此时，他的妻子在家人的强烈鼓励下，决定最好离开，带着孩子回到了冰岛。[150]施马尔茨，p。 38.

罗克韦尔前往冰岛试图让家人团聚。当他在雷克雅未克市下飞机时，没有人在等他。他搭便车去了妻子和孩子们住的地方。刚到门口，就听见孩子们在里面跑来跑去。他放下随身携带的玩具蒸汽铲和布娃娃，敲了敲门。他的妻子名叫索拉，打开门喊道：“你！你在这里做什么？”几天后，罗克韦尔意识到事情并没有像他希望的那样发展，他只身回到了美国。他再也见不到索拉或孩子们了。[151]同上，第。 56。
（施马尔茨，第 38 页。）

从那时起，罗克韦尔的一生致力于持续不断的组织、出版、示威和演讲活动。他的活动导致他可能成为美国最受蔑视和嘲笑的人，并在公开示威后在监狱和医院病床上度过了相当长的一段时间。在他去世前一年，一名记者问罗克韦尔：“你相信你所宣扬的所有这些吗？”罗克韦尔缓慢地低声回答道：“这让我失去了世界上最美丽的妻子。七个孩子。都是我的亲人。我是一名海军指挥官，距离领取养老金还有半年的时间（在因政治观点和活动而被海军开除之前）。当然，我相信这一切。”[152]同上，第。 301。
（施马尔茨，第 38 页。）

罗克韦尔撰写了一本自行出版的书，名为 白力。在书中，他以群体生活原则的形式阐述了他的国家社会主义信仰，他称之为“部落法”。[153]乔治·林肯·洛克威尔， 白力 （洛杉矶：世界服务，1972 年），第 444-448 页。 罗克韦尔认为，这些法则有五项：生物完整性、领地、领导力、地位和母性。

罗克韦尔说，生物完整性是“对自己种族群体的绝对、完全和不妥协的忠诚” 和 对侵入并威胁将自己的基因与该群体中女性的基因混合的外来者抱有绝对的、毫不妥协的仇恨。”根据这一思想，大自然创造了动物品种，包括人类的各个物种，并保护这些品种的生物纯度，作为维持和改进它们的手段。大自然通过两种强大的本能在人类身上实现了这些目标：对自己品种的热爱和对外来者的仇恨。这两种本能同样必要。自己的爱是非常强大和美好的，但它不能也不应该孤立；它需要辅之以对威胁所爱之物的致命仇恨。确实，仇恨有它的一席之地。罗克韦尔写道，爱是善，恨是恶的观念只是“犹太人、自由主义者、酷儿、傻瓜和懦夫”的党派路线。

罗克韦尔断言，国家社会主义的本质植根于生物完整性法则：即对种族主义的肯定。对罗克韦尔来说，种族主义与道德无关，而与道德有关。这与对与错无关。相反，它是关于 事实，无论某事物是否符合自然的现实。他宣称，国家社会主义的核心是相信“人类与所有其他生物一样，在品种的优良性方面存在差异，并且白人是迄今为止出现的最好的品种，而黑人是最低的品种。 ”[154]同上，第。 453。
（乔治·林肯·洛克威尔， 白力 （洛杉矶：世界服务，1972 年），第 444-448 页。） 因此，国家社会主义颠倒了种族主义，从应受谴责的东西变成了与自然相一致并为自然服务的东西。

然后还有领土法。为了说明这个概念，罗克韦尔以一种名为剑尾鱼的小型热带鱼为例，它们会监视水箱的一部分，并猛烈地攻击任何侵入其空间的东西。罗克韦尔声称，人类就像这些剑尾鱼：为自己和我们的人民争夺领土是我们的本性。他说，在人类事务中，这项法律的形式是坚持私有财产概念以及国家认同和忠诚。

罗克韦尔认为，领导法则是团队的领导权掌握在最优秀的人手中。他断言，在动物王国，即使有可能，领导人也不会通过民主投票选出。自然的方法是 打击，而不是选票，罗克韦尔说。大自然不会采用民主投票，因为这是一种将群体中最优秀的人带到领导职位的冒险方式。人类事务已经证明，从长远来看，即使不是立即，投票也将不可避免地导致领导职位出现非最佳的结果。以民主方式选出的领导人很可能是最能说会道和最圆滑的，但他们不太可能是最明智和最有能力的。

地位法则与领导法则类似，只不过它适用于团体中的所有职位，而不仅仅是领导职位。地位法则规定，对于每个人来说，在群体成员的等级秩序中都有一个自然的位置。所有的团体成员都在这个层次结构中争夺自己的位置或利基，然后融入其中并对此感到相当满意。罗克韦尔说，这一过程的结果是，该团体的一切顺利、有序、高效地进行。

最后，还有母性法则。罗克韦尔声称，女性不插手男性事务是大自然的方式，她们专门负责生育和养育后代以及创建健康的家庭。

按照罗克韦尔的思维方式，我们违反这五项法律将面临极大的危险，而且有一个特别的群体正在尽最大努力说服我们这样做：犹太人。为了了解他的修辞风格，我引用了罗克韦尔书中的一段内容，书中讲述了犹太人如何脱离自然，按照他的说法，促进了对部落法律的违反：

犹太人传播了“普世主义”、“同一个世界主义”——无种族、无国籍和原子化个人的乌合之众——这一具有难以形容的破坏性的观念，作为人类的最高观念。就连保守派也被这种不自然的、支离破碎的、超个人主义的犹太社会病所吸引，只在口头上表示支持。

犹太人告诉我们，生物完整性法则（内在爱，外在恨）是“种族主义”——有史以来的“终极邪恶”！我们被告知，如果我们不像爱我们自己的人民那样爱黄种人、黑人——尤其是犹太人——那么我们就是邪恶的、变态的、注定要失败的——我们就是“种族主义者”。数百万可怜的白人傻瓜相信犹太人的谎言！

我们被告知，领土法（私有财产）是一种不自然的法律。 贪心，而正派的人必须愿意分享一切，并且不渴望拥有自己的私有财产。他们称之为“马克思主义社会主义”、“共产主义”以及其他各种名称，表明对“社会”和“社区”的关注——但所有这些名称都触及了生物体最强大且唯一动机的核心：建设、创造和生产。数百万人相信这些犹太骗子。

犹太人告诉我们，领导法则（最好的统治）是“独裁”，我们必须争取“民主”（暴民统治）。数以百万计的雅利安白人被诱骗相信这首“民主”的海妖之歌，直到人类垃圾暴徒现在威胁着我们整个国家。

犹太人告诉我们，地位法则（建立每个人在其适当位置的能力的自然秩序）是“阶级剥削”，一个社会的天生领导者——那些成功的人——必须是被那些没有这样做的人粉碎和谋杀。整个充满善良白人雅利安人的国家都被这种通过阶级战争分裂和征服我们人民的卑鄙犹太方法所欺骗。

最后，这些充满爱心的犹太人告诉我们，女性在抚养孩子方面的专业化是对我们女性的残酷奴役，女性应该成为法官、机车工程师、军官和企业高管。当然，其结果是，所有健康文明的神圣而美丽的机构、母性以及随之而来的家庭日益遭到破坏。我们整个西方世界都陷入了这种“民主”的犹太骗局，这使得妇女成为犹太病最可怜的受害者。数以百万计的“现代”女性无可救药地迷失、沮丧和极度痛苦，尽管她们通过扩音器大声疾呼更多的“权利”，并在地狱般的、好战的政治组织中游行。与此同时，数以百万计的家庭失去了温暖、美好的母亲，家庭变得更像是豪华的监狱，而不是一个世纪前充满爱和温暖的奇迹。[155]同上，第449-450页。
（乔治·林肯·洛克威尔， 白力 （洛杉矶：世界服务，1972 年），第 444-448 页。）

罗克韦尔认为，犹太人自己遵守部落的法律，同时又将违反部落的法律强加于他人：

犹太人的群体忠诚度也许是世界历史上最奇妙的。它促使他们几乎掌控了整个世界——不是因为他们比我们其他人更勇敢、更努力、更聪明或更有价值——而是因为他们遵守自然的基本法则并维护 团体忠诚度。当我们其他人都陷入腐烂的“同一个世界”、“我们都是兄弟”的垃圾时，这些垃圾就会瓦解 我们的 犹太人认为社会 其 社会具有历史上从未见过的群体忠诚度，因此他们从一个胜利走向另一个胜利。[156]同上，第。 452。
（乔治·林肯·洛克威尔， 白力 （洛杉矶：世界服务，1972 年），第 444-448 页。）

对于罗克韦尔来说，国家社会主义归结为与事物的自然秩序保持一致的生活：

国家社会主义是 仅由 运动已经获得了足够的自知之明和洞察力，能够理解这一运动远离自由的人为和短视，走向自然的永恒智慧。我们全力以赴的信念 种族，我们对社会、经济和人类活动的其他领域中的自然法则的坚持，在任何情况下都是对这些法则的有意识的、科学的应用，而不是对这些法则的自负和短视的曲解……[157]同上，第。 457。
（乔治·林肯·洛克威尔， 白力 （洛杉矶：世界服务，1972 年），第 444-448 页。）

罗克韦尔在书中表示，他试图推动的国家社会主义运动并不是为了获得政治或经济权力，至少目前不是。相反，从根本上来说，这是一项教育工作，试图彻底改变白人对自己的思考和感受方式。它涉及

消除自私的原子论和贪婪狭隘的“个人主义”或“民主”，并在西方白人心中恢复对我们自己同类的深深满足的爱的感觉。这种对群体的爱体现在愿意为自己的家庭以及自己种族的大家庭做出牺牲和奉献。[158]同上，第。 461。
（乔治·林肯·洛克威尔， 白力 （洛杉矶：世界服务，1972 年），第 444-448 页。）

对于罗克韦尔来说，这归结为在欧洲白人中带来种族认同感和忠诚度。

我从皮尔斯那里得到了一份罗克韦尔 1966 年 XNUMX 月向大学听众发表演讲的录音带，这一定与皮尔斯在电视上看到的激励他给罗克韦尔写信的演讲相似。[159]“布朗大学的罗克韦尔” 美国持不同政见者之声，录音带编号。 448（西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1992 年）。 演讲是在罗德岛州普罗维登斯的布朗大学发表的，二战爆发前，罗克韦尔本人曾是该大学的学生。我认为观众主要由布朗大学的学生和教师组成。

罗克韦尔的演讲持续了大约一个小时。他的态度乐观，说话风格连珠炮似的，让人想起单口喜剧（“让我告诉你，女士们、先生们……”）。他身上有一种轻松和讨人喜欢的感觉。他并不阴暗或严厉，除了在一次与观众的交流中（如下所述），观众要求他停止讲话。因此，除了这个例外之外，这位非常迷人的演讲者和他所传达的犹太人是魔鬼化身的实质内容之间存在着对比。在罗克韦尔的整个演讲过程中，观众们大声喊出嘲讽的评论。喊叫声成为罗克韦尔麦克风放大声音的背景，并成为演讲的一部分，并在很大程度上定义了这一事件。这个场合有一种做作的感觉，我很难说这个活动对观众来说有多真实——真实，而不是参加一种即兴的戏剧表演，或者只是一个傻瓜，近年来参加杰里·斯普林格 (Jerry Springer) 秀的人们可能会如何看待这个场合。

罗克韦尔的演讲并不是所谓的直线演讲——它从这里到那里，然后又回来。他经常打断准备好的讲话，与质问者争吵，然后似乎是自发地离题。但尽管曲折曲折，罗克韦尔似乎从未失去他的观众，而且我有一个明显的印象，当他结束时，在场的人更愿意他继续下去。我怀疑他们并不是想更多地听到他想要传达的信息；而是因为他们想听更多他想要传达的信息。毫无疑问，绝大多数人都确信他在胡言乱语。相反，他们玩得很开心，不希望它结束​​。

罗克韦尔首先告诉观众他为什么是国家社会主义者。他说他将展示一些让他转变的“令人震惊的事实”。然后他说，上次他在这个大厅里时，他“半醉半醒，在舞会上缠住了一个女孩”——这引起了一阵讽刺的笑声。他说他读了一篇关于犹太组织整个星期都在努力推翻他当晚演讲中所说的话的文章。但罗克韦尔表示，上次共产主义者在校园里演讲时，这位共产主义者“被邀请与彭布罗克女孩（布朗的姐妹学校）一起喝茶，而犹太人却一句话也没说！你最后一次听说犹太人抗议共产党是什么时候？”

洛克威尔回到他的演讲时说，他今晚的论点是，除非你了解有关事物的所有事实，否则你不可能有受过教育的观点或管理民主。他承认，大多数自由主义者都是真诚和奉献的人，而且他断言，学术界的大多数人都是自由主义者。但他坚持认为，他们之所以成为自由主义者，是因为他们所面临的事实让他们除了成为自由主义者之外别无选择的余地。

随后，罗克韦尔开始阅读温斯顿·丘吉尔 1920 年伦敦剪报的摘录。这时，观众席上有人发出了叫喊声，罗克韦尔表示，这是他第一次听到温斯顿·丘吉尔有这样的反应。罗克韦尔表示，他会将演讲中提到的任何印刷材料的副本发送给任何需要的人，如果其中任何内容被证明是假的，他将“为哈里·戈尔登和全国有色人种协进会工作”。然后他读完丘吉尔文章的摘录，该文章实际上说 1917 年的俄罗斯革命是犹太人接管了这个国家。罗克韦尔声称，革命后的三百八十三名政委中，有三百多名是犹太人。 “为什么没人告诉你这个？”他问他的听众。

罗克韦尔继续说道，在俄罗斯，你有言论自由。你可以批评任何人——除了共产党人。罗克韦尔宣称，同样的情况也适用于中国。你可以批评任何人，除了共产党人。在古巴，同样的事情——除了卡斯特罗之外的任何人。在美国，你可以批评任何人。 “你可以批评爱尔兰人，”他说，“还有意大利人、法国人、来自布朗和彭布罗克的人，任何你想要的人。也就是说，除了犹太人之外的任何人。你不能批评他们。如果你认为可以，明天就尝试一下。你会被称为反犹太主义者。没有人敢对犹太人说任何批评的话。”

“犹太人不会烧书来阻止你阅读，”罗克韦尔断言。 “他们比这更复杂。他们不会烧掉它们，因为那样你就会知道。他们只是默默地运用自己的商业天赋。他们只是对书商说，“如果你卖掉任何我们不喜欢的书，你就不会再得到任何书了”，而且由于他们控制着出版业，他们可以兑现他们的威胁。结果就是你买不到他们不喜欢的书。”

罗克韦尔随后又拿出了另一份文件。他说，这是犹太组织 B’nai B’rith 反诽谤联盟写给书商的一份备忘录。据罗克韦尔称，“Scribners and Sons 刚刚出版了麦迪逊·格兰特的一本书，题为 征服大陆.[160]麦迪逊·格兰特， 征服大陆 （纽约：斯克里布纳，1934 年）。 这与犹太人的利益极为对立。全文强调的是北欧优越论，以及对任何关于美国的熔炉哲学的彻底否定。我们有兴趣阻止这本书的销售。”罗克韦尔认为，这本书从未批评犹太人。 “它只是说白人是优等种族并创造了美国。你无法阅读它，无法购买它，也无法获得它。”

“现在，我写了一本书，”罗克韦尔继续说道。 “这可能是世界上最糟糕的书，但你不认为你应该能够自己决定吗？你认为反诽谤联盟和犹太退伍军人应该能够聚在一起说你不会读罗克韦尔的书吗？你不会听到他说话吗？如果他确实能讲话，他会在一个小大厅里讲话？他也不会在电视上为自己说话吗？”

罗克韦尔随后制作了另一份文件；他说，这个来自美国犹太委员会。他说，这告诉人们如果他确实设法得到倾听，该如何对待他：“不要回应罗克韦尔提出的观点。不要与他争论。只要指出他是一只多么老鼠就可以了。直呼其名。”

“你不仅被拒绝提供信息，”罗克韦尔宣称。 “他们会告诉你你喜欢什么、不喜欢什么，如果你反抗并说‘哦，不，我不会同意’，他们就会使用普通的老式恐怖主义。任何人认为他们不这样做，站起来并尝试发表所谓的反犹太主义演讲。尝试分发我读给你听的丘吉尔的文章，除非你组织得很好，否则你最终会流鼻血。他们不会与你争论，他们不会否认你所说的话，他们只是让你闭嘴。”

“这应该是一所免费大学（布朗大学）。全国有很多大学，人们总是说“我是共产主义者”。但如果你尝试说一些反对种族平等或反对犹太人的话——他们可能参与共产主义或支持种族混合——你就会被封口。”

罗克韦尔认为，正是这种对事实的压制才造就了自由主义。 “有人告诉你，黑人是一个皮肤黝黑的白人。如果这是事实，那么我们就没有任何歧视的必要。我们应该和他们结婚，我们应该和他们混在一起[生孩子]。但如果除了肤色之外还有其他差异，那么我们应该进行讨论。但这是你做不到的。一旦你试图指出除了肤色之外还存在差异这一事实，那么你就有麻烦了。你是种族主义者、纳粹分子、法西斯分子、仇恨者、偏执狂。这些都是名字。没有人讨论事实。有很多事实可以证明黑人到底是什么。”

“如果事实真像他们所说的那样，”罗克韦尔继续说道，“黑人很棒，犹太人甚至更好，那么我们应该混合在一起，犹太人应该管理这个国家，我们还不如放弃，我们白人基督徒。我们无权试图管理我们的国家。我们太傻了。但这些都不是事实。”

“罗马帝国因衰老而灭亡，”罗克韦尔说。 “它腐烂了。它烂了。美国不是一个古老的国家，但它正在衰落。发生这种情况的原因并不是因为我们年老、衰老或虚弱。这是因为我们正在被故意腐烂；美国的灵魂正在被细菌腐烂。我有一面越共旗帜，我亲手撕毁了它，并因此入狱。在白宫周围游行的共产党人继续游行，我进了监狱。我们的国家正在发生叛国行为，甚至没有人感到愤怒，甚至没有人再关心。美国将袖手旁观一切发生。任何事情都会发生，但没有人会采取任何行动。我正在努力发起一场运动来阻止美国的腐烂和腐烂。”

罗克韦尔随后给出了他所说的腐烂和腐烂的例子。首先他提供了现代艺术。他说他对艺术有所了解。 1948 年，他为美国癌症协会制作的整版广告在商业艺术竞赛中获得一等奖，该广告在 “纽约时报”。 “这种怪异的艺术是从哪里来的？”他问。 “看起来像一场车祸的画作。那么那些扭曲的诗歌和看起来像牛粪堆起来的雕塑怎么样？”他的观点是它来自犹太人，然后他开始给出他所声称的例子。他说，起初他以为毕加索只是一个西班牙人，但后来他才知道他是“男孩中的一员”。 [毕加索不是犹太人。]他说，他所谈论的犹太人的另一个例子是拉尔夫·金斯伯格（Ralph Ginsburg）（杂志出版商）；他是一名犹太人。或者不，他纠正自己，另一个人，诗人，他记不起他的名字[艾伦]。

他说，这种艺术正在破坏秩序，当这种情况发生时，你将毫无防备。 “为什么，在华盛顿特区，就在我住的地方，女人不能独自走在街上，因为她们从树上掉下来。” [笑声] 听到笑声，罗克韦尔补充道：“不，这是真的！他们[毫无疑问是指黑人]实际上确实从树上掉到了国务院一位高官的女儿身上。这不是我编造的。”

然后他接着谈到“在华盛顿的一家主要酒店——喜来登酒店或肖勒姆酒店举行的酷儿大会”。

他宣称：“总有一天，你会划清界限，说这是错误的、不道德的，我们将制止这种行为。”

洛克威尔然后转向犹太人：“你听说过六百万人（在大屠杀中被杀），但是有没有犹太人向你展示过他们在俄罗斯对基督徒做了什么，杀害了两千万基督徒？ [他指的是斯大林时代对政治对手和被称为富农的独立农民的消灭。]没有电影，就没有眼泪。”

然后是共产主义和民权运动：“现在，黑人是真正受压迫的人，”罗克韦尔承认。 “他们的生活很艰难。共产党进来并说“我们要帮助你们这些穷人。”然后他们就开始游行、爬行、蠕动和湿身[引来阵阵笑声]，然后他们让你们所有人都下楼去塞尔玛（阿拉巴马州，大型民权示威地点）并帮助他们。领导这一切的人是马丁·路德·金。我查看了他所属的所有红色组织，他得到了共产党的援助。我说他是红人！”

罗克韦尔接着断言，犹太人是民权运动的幕后黑手，因为他们是共产主义者，想要促进种族通婚和白人种族的分裂。

罗克韦尔告诉他的听众，当他看到这个国家发生的这一切时，他首先加入了保守派，以此作为对此采取行动的一种方式。但他很快就对保守派不再抱有幻想，他说保守派是“我遇到过的最胆怯的芬克斯”。他说他放弃了他们，并告诉自己他要“战斗，说实话，我所知道的一切。”

“所以从那时起我就一直说实话，尽管这很艰难，但我赢得了一些我见过的最优秀的人，他们不是伪君子和胆小鬼。这个国家正淹没在虚伪和怯懦之中。保守派说“我爱犹太人，黑人是我最好的朋友。”这将如何拯救国家？所以我成为一名纳粹分子，因为我发现了纳粹是什么。纳粹是一个相信白人高于一切的人。这并不意味着我们必须迫害任何人，但这确实意味着我们必须保持我们的国家是白色的。如果以色列是一个犹太国家并且有权成为犹太人，如果加纳是一个黑人国家并且有权成为黑人，为什么我们没有权利让一个白人国家保持白人和基督教徒的身份？如果你们去以色列并在犹太学校开展反对唱犹太歌曲的运动，你们认为你们还能坚持多久？然而他们却在这里反对我们唱圣诞颂歌。他们不会容忍，但我们必须容忍。

“他们正在摧毁我们的文化、我们的文明，他们有数百万像你们一样的优秀美国人帮助他们做到这一点，因为你们真的相信自己正在帮助建设一个更美好的世界。他们告诉你德国可怜的犹太人发生了什么，但他们没有告诉你犹太人做了什么 至 德国，以及他们在这里试图做的事情。任何试图告诉你的人，他们都会利用恐怖主义让他闭嘴。每次我说话时，我都会收到来信说“我同意你所说的，但我不敢说出来。”这种情况必须停止。在美国，没有人应该害怕说出自己的心里话，我们就是这样。这就是为什么我是纳粹分子，因为我不再成为恐惧的奴隶。我将不再害怕说出我认为的真相。如果我错了，告诉我，我就会退出，但不要再骂我、辱骂我、打我的脸。它永远不会阻止我。它从未阻止我们的祖先。在这个国家的历史上，没有一个名副其实的美国人会因为有人殴打他、称他生病或向他扔东西而退缩，我也不打算这样做。”

这时，台下的几个人都惊呼起来。我听不懂他们在说什么。

罗克韦尔回应道：“我要么维持秩序，要么就不说话。”

“别说话！”一个男声喊道。欢呼声随之而来。

“你想让我辞职吗？我会很高兴退出。”

大声喊叫，混杂成怒吼。

罗克韦尔认为这表明他应该继续下去。 “那就让这些犹太人闭嘴，我就继续！”我不会在混乱中说话​​的！”

“反正你也不说什么！”干杯。

“当犹太人安静下来时，我就会继续。”

“现在离开！”

“现在你的机会来了，犹太人。让基督徒看看你是如何运作的。”

“在我看来，黑人在生物学上是劣等的，”罗克韦尔继续说道。 “不是所有人——这个房间里可能有一些人比我聪明。我说的是普通的贫民窟黑人。大量黑人无法在现代城市社会中生存。这不是他们的错，也不是我的错，但补救的方法不是剥夺你们的权利并将其交给黑人，因为这对你们任何一个都没有帮助。它只会让每个人都失望。我认为我们[种族]应该分开。我认为隔离行不通，我也知道融合行不通。如果我们不能让他们[黑人]去非洲，我愿意给他们美国的一部分——即迈阿密海滩和布鲁克林！” [笑声]

罗克韦尔随后谈到了“犹太人的商业天才”如何让他们控制了电视，“一个控制美国人思想的行业”。 “电视是世界上最强大的媒体，”罗克韦尔断言。 “[目前]只有三个电视网络。 NBC 的主席是俄罗斯犹太人罗伯特·萨尔诺夫 (Robert Sarnoff)。 ABC 的主席是俄罗斯犹太人伦纳德·戈登森 (Leonard Goldenson)。在哥伦比亚广播公司，有威廉·佩利（William Paley）——帕林斯基——另一位俄罗斯犹太人。他们控制着你在电视上看到的一切，因此，尽管这个国家百分之八十五的严重犯罪都是黑人犯下的，但你见过黑人罪犯吗？每次你看到一个黑人时，他都是法官、律师或者非常伟人。另一方面，每当你看到一部侦探小说，你试图找出是谁干的肮脏的老鼠时，一个人走过来说：“大家好，我来自阿拉巴马州，”他干了这件事，就是那个家伙！他通常不刮胡子，又脏又脏——南方白人基督教新教徒，不好。这就是您的电视所发生的情况。我想说的是，犹太商人已经登上了顶峰，这是他们的特权，但随后他们利用并滥用自己的地位来洗脑我们的国家，让你不再知道发生了什么。

“我相信共产主义作为这个国家的一个问题正在迅速消失。我认为这个问题很快就会变成种族问题。我要去战斗。我在第二次世界大战中做到了，在韩国也做到了，我还会在这里再做一次。非常感谢。” [沉默，然后是零星的掌声。]

“罗克韦尔对你的思想有重大影响吗？”我问皮尔斯。

“罗克韦尔对我没有任何哲学影响，但我确实从他那里学到了很多实用的东西，比如如何印刷出版物等等。当我住在康涅狄格州时，我每个周末都会开车去华盛顿——持续了几个月。 [那时，罗克韦尔把他的总部搬到了一位老妇人借给他的一栋白色的、有十六个房间的房子里。]我只是坐在罗克韦尔的办公室里，尽可能地观察、倾听和吸收他是如何处理事情的。 。电话会打进来，他的组织的成员会进来和他交谈。我会像你一样和他交谈，我会努力让自己更加明确我能做什么。他是一个不受威胁的人——你可以问他任何事情。我们逐渐了解了彼此，尽管我们非常不同——他很合群而我不合群等等——但我真的很喜欢这个家伙。 1965 年，他对 Alex Haley 进行采访时，我在他的办公室里。 花花公子 杂志。”

后来我发现了 花花公子 皮尔斯提到的文章。[161]花花公子 访谈，第 71-72、74、76-82、154、156 页。 该采访发表在 1966 年 XNUMX 月号的《 花花公子 并在当时受到了很多关注。海莉（现已去世）是一位非洲裔美国作家，因帮助马尔科姆·X 撰写自传而闻名，该书为 1970 世纪 XNUMX 年代末取得巨大成功的电视迷你剧《根》提供了灵感。在采访的序言中，黑利描述了他对罗克韦尔的介绍：

大约有十几个纳粹分子冷冷地盯着我，看守们送我经过他们，走上楼梯来到罗克韦尔的门口，一名手持双臂的士兵熟练地从头到脚对我进行了搜身。我注意到，伸手可及的地方有一个木架，上面装有短的战斗长度的锯断铁管。警卫发现我“干净”，就隆重地打开门，走进去，行礼，说“万岁”——里面粗鲁地回响——然后站到一边，点头允许我进去。我进去了。[162]同上，第。 72。
(花花公子 访谈，第 71-72、74、76-82、154、156 页。）

海莉在采访开始时问罗克韦尔为什么他的肘部放着一把手枪，为什么房间里有一名武装保镖（皮尔斯说他不是保镖，也没有武装）。罗克韦尔回答说：

只是一个预防措施。你可能不知道我已经收到了数千起针对我生命的威胁。他们中的大多数都是来自怪人，但其中一些 没有 到过。这栋大楼的外部布满了弹孔。就在上周，两加仑燃烧的汽油被扔到了房子上，就在我的窗户下面。在接受采访时，我把枪放在触手可及的地方，并在我身边安排一名警卫，因为我已经被袭击了太多次，不敢冒险。[163]同上。
(花花公子 访谈，第 71-72、74、76-82、154、156 页。）

在采访中，罗克韦尔回顾了他的“四阶段”计划，他称之为：

第一阶段是接触大众：在接触大众之前你什么也做不了。为了接触到他们——没有金钱、没有地位、没有公共平台——你必须成为一个引人注目的人物。现在，为了实现这一目标，我不得不接受很多垃圾：被称为坚果和怪物以及其他一切。但通过挂上纳粹标志，我接触到了群众。第二阶段是消除他们对我的错误印象，教育他们了解我真正的计划是什么。第三阶段是把我所教育的人组织成一个政治实体。第四阶段将是利用该政治实体作为赢得政治权力的机器。[164]同上，第。 80。
(花花公子 访谈，第 71-72、74、76-82、154、156 页。）

在采访中，罗克韦尔谈到了“让人们意识到这一点”。他的最新想法包括在纽约哈林区中心莱诺克斯大道和 125 街的拐角处举办“重返非洲”集会，以及在希特勒生日那天在曼哈顿上空写下纳粹党徽。[165]同上，第72，80页。
(花花公子 访谈，第 71-72、74、76-82、154、156 页。）

罗克韦尔谈到了他两次入狱的经历：

......新奥尔良的犹太人主导的官员以虚假指控将我们全部投入监狱，但后来被撤销。我们最终通过绝食摆脱了困境：我们十一个人连续八天没有吃一口东西……还有一次在弗吉尼亚，他们把我关进监狱，我因“向黑鬼发动战争”而面临着十年可能的监禁。 ”你从来没有见过一个人像逮捕我的警长那样有罪……他觉得自己做错了事。我在这里，一个白人，为了他所信仰的东西而奋斗，而他却把我扔进了监狱。[166]同上，第。 56。
(花花公子 访谈，第 71-72、74、76-82、154、156 页。）

他甚至讨论了 1972 年担任总统的计划：

到1972年，随着经济的崩溃，随着黑人的推动，随着共产党的煽动，随着所有这些精神空虚，随着我们政府的所有这些怯懦和背叛，普通的普通白人群众将受苦了。取决于 此处。他们希望白宫有一位真正的领导人——不再是没有骨气的水母，不再是油腻的、两面派的煽动者……[167]同上，第。 82。
(花花公子 访谈，第 71-72、74、76-82、154、156 页。）

“这是你的主意吗？”我询问皮尔斯，“创办 国家社会主义世界 并担任其编辑？”

“这是一个汇合——它来自罗克韦尔和我。当我在康涅狄格州工作时，我经常去耶鲁大学图书馆，我发现了所有这些关于种族和人口统计等的精彩书籍，这些书籍都是在 1920 世纪 30 年代和 XNUMX 年代写的，警告我们正在实施的政策地方会领先，而且他们已经三十年没有被检查过了。所以我想，我一直想做的写一本书的意义何在？这些作者都是博学之士——我记得其中一位是纽约动物学会的会长——他们的文笔比我好，但没有人读他们的书。我想，除了写一本书并让它沉下去而不引起涟漪之外，我还必须做点什么。我决定要做一些更具互动性并且能够自我构建的事情。我决定开始写一本日记，我心里已经有了一个标题， 国家社会主义思想。但我从未出版过任何类型的出版物。我不知道如何继续。我如何将其付印？事实证明，我与罗克韦尔的联系教会了我很多这方面的知识。

“在我认识罗克韦尔一段时间后，我向他提出了期刊的想法，他说这也正是他一直在考虑的，我们应该称之为 国家社会主义世界。我觉得他的头衔比我的好，我说好吧。罗克韦尔已经画好了封面布局、设计和一切的草图——艺术是他的专长——但他没有人来出版这本杂志。我们又讨论了一些，我告诉罗克韦尔，我无法与他周围的人一起工作——他周围有很多真正有缺陷的人——所以它必须与他的业务完全分开。我告诉他，我需要你提供一半的资金来创办这本期刊，使用你的印刷厂、你的邮件列表和你的专业知识。我会把它放在一起。罗克韦尔同意了，尽管到了付打印机钱的时候，他没有钱，所以我不得不支付全部费用。但事实证明它是成功的——至少它收回了成本。

“我浓缩了我在俄勒冈州立大学读过的 Savitri Devi 的书， 闪电与太阳，大约是原来长度的四分之一，并在第一期中重印。[168]塞维特里·德维（Sevitri Devi），《闪电与太阳》， 国家社会主义世界， 不。 1，1966 年春，第 13-90 页。 我写信给她，把我的凝结发给她，问她是否同意我这样做，她说她同意。几乎没有人看过她的书——没有人在任何地方出售它。她自己打印了这本书，如果有人给她写信，就像我在俄勒冈州那样，她会给他寄一份这本书的副本。当罗克韦尔发现我将在第一期中使用它时，他有点吃惊——这对他的口味来说可能有点干——但他同意了。重印占据了大部分空间，然后我写了几篇文章，其中一篇是罗克韦尔的，还有一些书评，仅此而已。”

皮尔斯在他的新期刊上出版了萨维特里·黛维的书，这引起了比她自己出版的作品更多的读者的注意，并极大地激发了人们对她的作品日益增长的兴趣。黛维是人们在极右政治边缘遇到的有趣人物的一个例子。尽管黛维出生时是法国公民，但年轻时的黛维（当时的马克西米亚尼·波塔斯）却对她父亲的出生国希腊产生了认同。她的传记作者尼古拉斯·古德里克·克拉克 (Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke) 描述了她去希腊求学的经历：

美丽的雅典在她的脑海中浮现出古代社会的景象：苗条而健壮的希腊年轻人完美的体格，日常生活的秩序和简单，以及士兵的尚武气概和勇气。她看到穿着宽松白色服装的商人和镇民在集市的广场上忙碌着，哲学家们则坐在低矮的石墙上交谈。她所到之处都感受到了美丽、秩序和光线，这是古典人与自然和谐相处的形象，创造了令人赞叹的建筑和伟大的公共空间。在她看来，这种崇高的“希腊文化”、“一个彻头彻尾的武士和艺术家的美丽世界”，只能是纯粹种族的产物。[169]古德里克-克拉克，第 14-15 页。

随着时间的推移，黛维开始将希特勒和国家社会主义与她建立基于古希腊的新种族秩序的梦想联系起来。

黛维获得了希腊公民身份，并在那里完成了科学、数学和哲学方面的研究生工作，并于 1931 年获得了博士学位。随后，她前往印度，希望在信奉印度教的印度找到一个相当于古希腊和北欧条顿部落的生活环境。基督教在那里扎根。 1932 年至 1935 年间，她住在罗宾德拉·泰戈尔 (Rabindrath Tagore) 的修道院，并采用了她余生所用的印度名字。

黛维很快就拒绝了基督教，因为基督教只对人类感兴趣，并接受了印度教，她认为印度教关心整个存在的宇宙，而人类只是这个更大、包罗万象的现实的一部分。古德里克-克拉克：

萨维特里·德维不接受人类与其他生物之间的分界线。她批评犹太教的一神论信条，认为上帝赋予人类特殊权利，可以为自己的利益而利用其他生物。在她看来，耶和华对他的选民犹太人的关心体现了部落或地方神的局限性。她认为，基督教只不过是一种全球化的部落宗教。基督徒将耶稣基督提升为一个大部落的神，即人类，而人类只不过是自然界无穷无尽的多样性中的一个物种。她厌恶基督教和其他信条宗教，因为它们将人而不是生命作为其创造性神话的中心和价值尺度的基础。[170]同上，第。 99。
（古德里克-克拉克，第 14-15 页。）

在印度的头五年里，黛维走遍了全国各地，在两所大学教授英语和印度历史，并在一个印度教传教团讲课，该传教团是由具有独立思想的印度教政治组织设立的，旨在抵消印度教在该国影响力下降的影响。 。她对印度民族主义政治分子印象深刻，他们寻求与希特勒德国建立更密切的关系，作为摆脱英国统治实现独立的努力的一部分，并结识了独立领袖苏巴斯·钱德拉·博斯(Subhas Chandra Bose)。她讲课的印度教使命有明显的亲希特勒倾向，其主席将希特勒描述为“世界的救世主”。

1938 年，黛维遇到了亲德杂志的编辑阿西特·克里希纳·穆克吉 (Asit Krishna Mukherji)，并与她结婚。 国家社会党 杂志。看来，这在很大程度上是一桩权宜婚姻，因为她担心，凭借自己作为印度教传教讲师和纳粹同情者的声誉，她会被英国当局作为疑似外国人驱逐出境，或被禁止出国旅行和回国。与穆克吉结婚将使她成为英国臣民的妻子，并能够自由旅行。黛维将他们的婚姻描述为基于共同的理想和真诚的友谊，而不是浪漫的依恋。没有孩子。在印度教传教团工作结束后，晚上她会在家里与丈夫讨论印度教、种族意识形态和社会问题。 我的奋斗。黛维还研究了瑜伽和印度美食，并写了一本关于“新秩序的宗教”的书，该书基于埃及法老阿赫纳顿的太阳崇拜，称为圆盘宗教。[171]同上，第70-74页。
（古德里克-克拉克，第 14-15 页。） 古德里克-克拉克：

按照自然生活的禁令是圆盘宗教的唯一戒律。人类应该将自然理解为一种理性、美丽和充满爱的秩序，而不是试图将自己的需求或权利观念强加于自然。任何反映“超自然”世界观的哲学或道德观念都会导致错误。圆盘的宗教很简单，就是一种浪漫的自然宗教。[172]同上，第103-104页。
（古德里克-克拉克，第 14-15 页。）

黛维认为纳粹主义与圆盘宗教是一致的，因为它也是基于对自然的理解和热爱的整体真理。她就这个主题写的书名为 神的儿子 于1946年出版。她的所有书籍都是在丈夫的帮助下自行出版的。

黛维战后的著作， 弹Man人 举个例子，他热情地主张动物权利和保护环境。她要求人类结束她所认为的对动物的剥削，并呼吁结束肉食、穿着毛皮和羽毛、狩猎、斗牛、马戏表演、使用动物作为驮兽以及在医疗中使用动物。和科学实验。她对美国发生的对自然的残酷对待表示遗憾，她说这个国家“迟至十九世纪中叶还是一片森林之地”。关于美国黛维写道：

树木被砍伐的地方，有公路和铁路，有无边无际的郊区的城镇，有迅速发展成城镇的村庄，还有大片的耕地；越来越多的耕地可以养活越来越多的人，而这些人可能从未出生过。[173]同上，第。 106。
（古德里克-克拉克，第 14-15 页。）

至于人类，在黛维眼中，质量太少，数量太多。古德里克-克拉克：

她反对西方的功利主义精神，即为最大多数人谋求最大利益。在她看来，人与人之间根本就不平等。她坚信，这种以牺牲自然为代价来强调普遍福利的做法最终将使地球沦为拥挤、污染的贫民窟。她寻求世界的质的改善，通过这种方式，她理解如何创造出一种坚韧、体格优越的雅利安人，居住在自然美景的审美世界中。对她来说，种族主义是保护大自然的美好生态的必要条件。[174]同上。
（古德里克-克拉克，第 14-15 页。）

在黛维看来，纳粹主义符合她对自然的敬畏。古德里克-克拉克：

纳粹哲学否定了人类知识分子的自负、对“进步”的天真骄傲以及奴役自然的徒劳尝试，而是将森林、海洋和外太空神秘而永恒的非个人智慧作为全球复兴政策的基础一个过度拥挤、过度文明、技术过度发达的世界。[175]同上，第。 120。
（古德里克-克拉克，第 14-15 页。）

虽然黛维将纳粹视为盟友，但她将犹太人视为对手。她相信犹太人站在她不想要的一切一边：种族混合、世界主义、马克思主义、自由主义、怀疑主义以及国际无种族兄弟情谊的理念。她认为犹太人一直把这些事情强加给别人，同时又紧紧地坚持自己的部落身份，从而保护自己免受负面后果的影响。[176]同上，第。 122。
（古德里克-克拉克，第 14-15 页。）

第二次世界大战后，黛维离开了印度，留下了她的丈夫。看来她和她的丈夫友好地分手了，而且他们从未离婚。她曾在冰岛担任法语导师。随后，她前往德国，与纳粹效忠者取得联系，并从事散发传单等活动，上面写着“坚守我们光荣的国家社会主义信仰，抵制！！”这使她因违反占领法在德国领土上宣传军国主义和国家社会主义思想而被捕，这一罪行最高可判处死刑。她以蔑视和蔑视的态度回应了自己的被捕，并被判处三年监禁，尽管她只服刑了几个月。在入狱期间，她完成了 闪电与太阳。当这本书于 1958 年出版时，她正在苏格兰爱丁堡一家巡回舞蹈公司担任服装经理。

黛维在 1960 世纪 1962 年代积极参与国际新纳粹活动，其中包括成为世界国家社会主义者联盟的创始成员。她与英国新纳粹分子密切合作，包括科林·乔丹和约翰·廷德尔。 XNUMX 年，她参加了英国国家社会主义运动党的一场集会，美国纳粹党领袖乔治·林肯·洛克威尔 (George Lincoln Rockwell) 的露面引起了广泛关注。

在她生命的最后几年，黛维到处旅行，与朋友和同情者住在一起。皮尔斯告诉我黛维只会背着背包出现并停留一段时间。 1982 年她去世后，她的骨灰被安放在国家社会主义白人党总部的神龛里（罗克韦尔于 1967 年初由美国纳粹党更名）。 1983年，这里为她举办了追悼会。装有她骨灰的瓮放在纳粹旗帜前的基座上。两边都有蜡烛和鲜花。右边是一张有点理想化的照片，年轻的萨维特里·黛维的侧面被一个花环包围，花环上挂着阿道夫·希特勒曾经佩戴过的腰带。

尽管萨维特里·黛维很少或根本没有受到媒体的关注，但自她去世以来，她在社会主流以外的某些圈子中已经获得了崇拜的地位。她对生活毫不妥协的态度，她对大众的蔑视和对原始雅利安新秩序的憧憬，她对动物的热爱，她以自然为中心的存在观，她对日益拥挤和自动化的世界的批评，以及她对一个更合适的世界的追求在我们这个时代，宗教比基督教更能引起共鸣。世界各地的新纳粹分子、激进环保主义者、异教徒、那些对人口增长和技术变革的影响持悲观态度的人以及动物权利倡导者谈论和阅读她的次数比她活着时还要多。[177]同上，第。 225。
（古德里克-克拉克，第 14-15 页。）

“你说罗克韦尔身边有很多有限的人？”我问皮尔斯。 “我认为你用‘有缺陷’这个词来形容它们。”

“罗克韦尔勇敢而诚实，他没有自我问题，”皮尔斯回答道。 “很多人都害怕采取不受欢迎的公开立场，但罗克韦尔却不然。他并不害怕伸出自己的脖子，被诽谤和殴打。我很欣赏这一点。但他是个浮夸的表演者，这就是他的风格，而我对此有意见。哗众取宠、炒作等等，简直没有尊严，显得愚蠢；事实上，我们所做的事情可不是闹着玩的。如果你像他那样上演一场表演，称自己为美国纳粹党，并在白宫前挥舞纳粹党旗，如果你采取煽动性的方式，大多数头脑冷静的人，即使他们只考虑自己作为国家社会主义者，他们会犹豫是否要参与这种马戏表演。罗克韦尔在自己周围聚集了一群人，他们中的大多数人在某些方面都存在缺陷。他们是瘸子。事情一直处于混乱之中。该死的事情一件接着一件。人们互相争斗并组织叛乱。人们必须被带出监狱。我心想：‘我无法忍受这个。我永远不会做任何依赖像这样有缺陷的人的事情。如果我想把事情做好，我身边就必须有正常、有道德、有能力的人。”这是我从罗克韦尔那里学到的最重要的一课：以一种能够吸引你能吸引的人的方式做事。与”一起工作。

“您当时与罗克韦尔的主要项目是出版第一版 国家社会主义世界， 是对的吗？”

“是的。在杂志制作期间，我仍然住在康涅狄格州。达拉斯的一家公司排版后，我把杂志的页面贴在那里。然后我利用年假去了弗吉尼亚州，罗克韦尔在那里有一家印刷店来监督实际的印刷工作。那是在华盛顿以南约五十英里的乡村的一块土地上，这是一位同情者给他的。它有一个用水泥块建造的鸡舍，长约一百英尺，宽约十二英尺。它已经安装了自来水和电力，他们把它用作营房和印刷店的组合。那里有一台印刷机，墙上有放置墨水和滚筒的架子、一间暗室、一台平版印刷机——平版印刷所需的一切。

“印刷店的负责人——记住这个名字——是约翰·帕特勒。当我在那里时，我有机会观察帕特勒。他的真名是亚纳基·帕萨洛斯。他是一个来自纽约、皮肤黝黑、油腻腻的小家伙，他为自己是希腊人而不是瑞典人或德国人感到难过。这确实让他很烦恼。他试图通过改变名字来掩饰自己的出身。他有这种自卑感，对浅色眼睛、浅色头发、浅色肤色的人有一种羡慕和仇恨。我不知道这是从哪里来的。也许是因为他在纽约长大，出身于一个贫穷的移民家庭，处于社会底层，而在他的家乡周围，处于顶层的是英国人、爱尔兰人和德国人。不管怎样，他正在组织党内的黑暗成员对抗他所谓的蓝眼恶魔。他是一个非常好斗的小混蛋。这是狂野的、超现实的。不过，帕特勒还是很有才华的。除了印刷之外，他还是一位艺术家。他为罗克韦尔制作漫画。他很聪明，有很强的意志力和干劲。印刷店里的其他人都是某种意义上的真正的失败者，他们为他做着繁重的工作。

“到了印刷杂志的时间，我就留在了印刷店。我在鸡舍一端的小厨房里吃饭，睡在当时的一辆旅行车里。罗克韦尔告诉我，我最好一直待在那里，因为他怀疑帕特勒会破坏这整件事。帕特勒讨厌你，罗克韦尔说。罗克韦尔说帕特勒不希望制作这本杂志，因为他认为它是他自己编辑的杂志的竞争对手，该杂志名为 突击兵。事实证明，帕特勒和我在那段时间一直处于争执之中。

“但我必须完成这本杂志，并且凭借纯粹的意志，我确实完成了它。我只是在推帕特勒。这是一场噩梦。他开始强烈地恨我，我相信如果他认为自己能逃脱惩罚的话，他一定会很乐意杀了我。当我到达那里时，我不知道如何进行这种平版印刷工作，但我看着帕特勒做，我学得很快。因此，当帕特勒试图阻止我时，我说“好吧，我会做的”，然后我操作相机并制作了底片。您会注意到该杂志的第一期（总共六期）的印刷密度不均匀。那是因为我缺乏做这类事情的经验。

“当我们到达装订和粘合所有封面等的最后阶段时，我们招募了来自邻近农场的所有小孩。免费劳动力。他们不知道这是怎么回事，但他们似乎玩得很开心。我记得其中一个大约五岁的小孩子被昵称为“屎”。

“6 年 1966 月 XNUMX 日，我用旅行车把所有这些杂志拖到了邮局。我对自己说， 阿克塔·阿莱亚东——木已成舟。我现在必须让它发挥作用。对我来说，这就像跳入未知的水域；我会沉下去还是游泳？我只是假设一旦该杂志出版，我将无法继续在普惠公司工作。所以我辞掉了那里的工作。当我做出第一个公开承诺，即出版该杂志的第一期时，我也对可能发生在我身上的事情充满了幻想。我想也许我会成为黑人激进组织或犹太黑帮的目标，我会受到攻击或枪击或其他什么，我不知道。但罗克韦尔的勇气榜样激励了我。我想用我自己的名字。我不想匿名，因为我想与人接触。事实证明，什么也没发生。我的理论是，印刷文字对黑人来说意义不大。只有当你真正面对面并面对他们时，他们才会做出反应。至于犹太人，如果他们感觉到威胁，他们会使用他们的组织之一，或者他们会组建一个新组织并以这种方式攻击你。

“我的妻子一直在期待这种变化——当杂志出版时，我告诉她我将不得不辞去康涅狄格州的工作——所以她一直在四处寻找工作。她在弗吉尼亚州弗雷德里克斯堡的玛丽华盛顿学院找到了数学助理教授的工作。我们住在弗雷德里克斯堡，我家里有一间办公室。我通勤到阿灵顿，在那里我有一个邮政信箱。杂志盒和罗克韦尔住处我保存记录的小空间。那是一座坐落在山上的古老宅邸，占地约四十英亩。它价值数百万美元。这块土地的主人是一位老妇人，她让罗克韦尔留在那里。我猜她喜欢罗克韦尔，但我认为，让他在那里也部分地达到了她的目的，让其他人远离这片土地。”

“我碰巧知道约翰·帕特勒，你在印刷店的对手，就是枪杀罗克韦尔的人。你对此了解什么？

“我们过去称帕特勒为‘驯兽师’，因为他会把最有缺陷的人聚集在他周围，那些其他人无法忍受的人，然后通过抚摸他们将他们变成他的奴隶。他是一个非常关注自己眼前的个人处境而不是改变美国的目标的人。约翰·帕特勒（John Patler）如何才能登上阶梯的下一级，这是他关心的问题。他非常憎恨任何他认为对他构成威胁的人。这会引起问题，因为每隔一段时间就会有人比他更有才华，他会像试图破坏我一样试图破坏这个人。当我在那里整理杂志时，罗克韦尔告诉我，他以前曾将帕特勒赶出了组织，而且看起来他将不得不再次这样做。罗克韦尔说，帕特勒一直是一个真正的问题，他伤得太紧了，印刷店里发生了更多的事件，帕特勒一直在做他的组织工作。我的杂志出版几个月后，罗克韦尔确实把帕特勒赶了出去——那是在 1966 年秋天。

大约在第二年，即 1967 年 XNUMX 月，罗克韦尔开车离开总部去办事。和往常一样，他出去的时候都有人陪着。但情况并非总是如此——他可能对自己的人身安全非常粗心。从房子到街道有一段很长的车程，大约有一百码，两边都是森林。当罗克韦尔出差回来时，车道上堆满了一些刷子。罗克韦尔正在开车，不得不停下来，另一个人下车清理车道上的灌木丛，这样他们就可以继续前进。

“原来帕特勒把刷子放在那里，并躲在车道旁的灌木丛中。当另一个人下车清理灌木丛时，帕特勒向坐在车里的罗克韦尔开了一枪。它没有击中目标，并在罗克韦尔坐的门上方的汽车上弹了回来。手无寸铁的罗克韦尔跳下车，开始朝帕特勒所在的地方跑去。帕特勒惊慌失措，跑过树林，罗克韦尔紧随其后。帕特勒带着武器，罗克韦尔没有，而罗克韦尔正在追他。帕特勒大约年轻二十岁，跑得更快，所以逃脱了。后来我问罗克韦尔是谁干的，他说，“我看不清那个人，我只能看到他的背影——但我发誓那是约翰·帕特勒。”我说，“你会从现在开始最好小心一点。帕特勒那个王八蛋疯了。”

“好吧，他不够小心。因为大约两个半月后，即 25 年 1967 月 1975 日，帕特勒杀了他。那是一个星期六的早上，罗克韦尔开车离开同一条车道，去街对面购物中心的自助洗衣店洗衣服。帕特勒也在同一地点的灌木丛中等待，看到罗克韦尔走进自助洗衣店。帕特勒走到那里，爬上屋顶，等待罗克韦尔出来。罗克韦尔出来并准备进入他的车，帕特勒从自助洗衣店的顶部穿过汽车的挡风玻璃向他开枪。罗克韦尔还没有关上车门，就从车里摔下来死了，胸部中弹。帕特勒在一小时内被捕，并被判入狱二十年，我认为他服刑了大约七年。 [帕特勒于 XNUMX 年被假释，但因违反假释规定而被额外服刑六年。[178]施马尔茨，p。 333.]

“我从未在罗克韦尔的组织中担任过正式职务。事实上，我什至从来都不是会员。去年一月，罗克韦尔将该党更名为国家社会主义白人党。我可能在那里影响了他。我告诉他，美国纳粹党的事情是一个马戏团，而不是一个政党；听起来不真实。但即使改了名字，我还是没有加入。但在罗克韦尔被枪杀后，我确实加入了。罗克韦尔对我做出了回应，成为了一位主播，我在他的帮助下创办了一本杂志，我觉得我不应该退出。当罗克韦尔被杀时，我出版已经一年多了。我本来可以很容易地离开，因为我有从罗克韦尔那里得到的最初邮寄杂志的邮件列表，订阅即将到来，我的办公室在弗雷德里克斯堡，但我不想看到一切都倒塌分开。我非常感谢罗克韦尔让我说出我真正想说的话，并为我提供了我需要的基础设施、印刷厂和专业知识以及获得订阅的初始邮件列表。而且我还在挖掘他的大脑。我学到了很多关于人、事情如何运作、与政府的互动等方面的知识，所以我觉得对他有义务。

“在罗克韦尔的圈子里，我只遇到了两三个我非常尊敬的人——我认为他们是真诚的、品格相当好的人——其中一个名叫马特·科尔的人。 [科尔与邮件押韵。从我当年看过的科尔的照片来看，他三十岁出头，黑发，相貌平平。] 科尔是洛克威尔的二号人物，所以洛克威尔走了，科尔就剩下了责任。我试图帮助科尔让事情继续下去。我决定，如果我要尝试帮助挽救事情，至少我应该成为该党的一员。所以我说，‘给我一张会员卡。我要把我的名字写在虚线上。我将成为国家社会主义白人党的成员，我将尽我所能帮助你。”

“现在回想起来，那是一个错误。我应该放弃并走自己的路。但它确实给了我一个工作和继续发展想法的环境。我又做了三期杂志。在罗克韦尔被枪杀之前我已经做了三件事，所以总共有六件事。上一期是1968年的。其中一期有我写的罗克韦尔的小传记。我还为他们的一份小报纸写了文章，一般都解决了问题。我的职责之一是，我会去华盛顿参加示威并拍照，我会携带一叠现金来保释任何被捕的人。

“罗克韦尔被杀后，还有一位参与拯救工作的人——罗伯特·劳埃德。劳埃德从十七岁起就和罗克韦尔在一起。我喜欢劳埃德并且和他合作得很好。他是一个聪明又勇敢的年轻人。 [劳埃德二十多岁，金发，接近肥皂剧里的英俊。]

“为了向你展示劳埃德是什么样子，那一定是在 64 年，密西西比州官方民主党派系和由许多犹太人组成的民权派系 [密西西比自由民主党] 之间发生了一场大辩论。认为传统派太传统、太老男孩网络、太白人的黑人。民权派声称他们是密西西比州的真正代表。所以罗克韦尔决定做一些政治戏剧。他派劳埃德去国会大厦。 [1965年XNUMX月，众议院准备进行新一届开幕会议的唱名表决。三名在密西西比州非裔美国人非正式投票中当选的黑人妇女计划要求成为该州的真正代表。[179]同上，第。 232。
（施马尔茨，第 333 页。）]

“劳埃德穿着普通的便装进入国会大厦，但他提着一个公文包，走进一间洗手间换了衣服。他戴上黑色的脸，骨头排列看起来像是穿过鼻子，披着狮子皮，戴着一顶瘦腿帽，其中一顶帽子很高，就像一顶礼帽。然后他跑出洗手间，躲开警察，跑到国会的地板上大喊：“我是密西西比州代表团，我要求坐下！”这让整个地方一片哗然，劳埃德大喊大叫，警卫试图抓住他。他。他跑过一排排座位，躲开了警卫大约五分钟，最后他们才把他带出了那里。它出现在电视上并成为头条新闻。劳埃德被罚款一百美元。他们决定不关押他，因为他们不想引起人们对他的同情。他们不想要任何形式的政治审判。不过，他们确实告诉劳埃德，如果他再做那样的事情，他们就会开枪射杀他。 【劳埃德的其他三个绝技：在全国有色人种协进会的一场宴会上跳上舞台并向观众扔“返回非洲船票”；穿着猿猴服装去参加民权示威活动；并试图向同性恋大会上的主讲人交付一个盒子，上面贴着标签，里面装有二十四夸脱凡士林的紧急货物。[180]同上，第215、235、275页。
（施马尔茨，第 333 页。）]

“我一直很钦佩劳埃德，因为他是一个聪明又无所畏惧的人。他将罗克韦尔给他的任务视为一项挑战，要求他成功完成任务。我们需要更多这样的人。劳埃德有点退出了。他要养家糊口，还要帮忙经营父亲的疗养院生意。我带他回来帮忙 国家社会主义世界。我任命他为流通经理。

“所以，科尔、劳埃德和我都在努力让这个组织继续运转。在这段时间里，我下定决心，如果我要继续做这件事，它就必须发展成比原来更有效的东西。从长远来看，对于该组织所吸引的失败者来说，实际上无能为力：摩托车团伙辍学者、刑满释放人员等等。所以很快我就向科尔建议，“Sieg Heil”和纳粹党徽臂章之类的事情并没有解决问题。我们不是在拍电影，我们不妨放弃好莱坞的东西，给我们真正需要吸引的人留下更好的印象。我从来没有参与过这类事情，这就是为什么犹太人从来没能拿出一张我穿着制服或戴着臂章的照片。我认为这很愚蠢，我不会参与其中，我告诉了科尔。

“劳埃德同意我的观点，即我们采用这种马戏团式的方法不会有任何结果，但科尔认为劳埃德和我正在做的事情是最糟糕的异端邪说。对科尔来说，这就像红衣主教团中有一位路德教会成员一样。从某些方面来说，科尔是一个令人钦佩的人。一方面，他非常可靠——但他缺乏想象力。为了弄清楚该怎么做，他会拿出 我的奋斗 或者看看 1928 年希特勒是怎么做的。我说，‘天啊，马特，我们现在的情况不同了。一方面，在德国穿制服是很正常的事情。每个人都这么做了——甚至天主教党也有制服和旗帜等等。但现在在美国这样做让我们显得很奇怪。如果你试图管理一个由怪人和不稳定的人组成的组织，他们被我们所做的事情所吸引，我们就会遇到持续的问题。

“随着时间的推移，科尔和我的分歧越来越严重。最后，1970年XNUMX月，我们发生了激烈的争吵，我退党了。科尔认为劳埃德和我正在密谋一场政变，以接管该组织并按照我们的方式运作。我们不是。我对管理这个组织没有兴趣。我唯一的兴趣是写作。我只是认为如果马特沿着不同的路线运作会更有意义。但科尔并不这么看。所以我退出了，劳埃德也退出了，而科尔继续按照他想要的方式去做。最终，科尔本人放弃了所有纳粹的胡言乱语，穿上便衣，成立了一个名为“新秩序”的组织，试图向公众展示一个更加美国化的形象。他在威斯康星州新柏林附近买了一些土地——一个足够适合新党总部的地方——他打算在那里建立一个殖民地，但它从未真正落地，科尔也从人们的视线中消失了。

“我有几个月处于漂泊状态。我决定我需要改变我的方法。我停产了 国家社会主义世界。继续下去没有意义。观众太少了；甚至没有国家社会主义组织。我需要与更多的观众和更多的正常人打交道——我所在的地方有太多的疯子。然后我遇到了卢·拜尔斯，了解了他的企业——全国青年联盟。拜尔斯告诉我他要放弃这个组织，我告诉他我有兴趣把它接手。”

皮尔斯告诉我，在 1970 年脱离科尔和国家社会主义白人党后的几个月里，他有些漂泊不定。在这段休息期间，他巩固了一个已经形成了一段时间的结论：他需要改变他的总体方法对事物。他终止了他一直出版的期刊， 国家社会主义世界六期之后，认为此类理论期刊的读者太少。这个国家没有国家社会主义运动，没有人民所属的组织，认同国家社会主义意识形态的人也非常有限。另外，皮尔斯希望与更广泛的人建立联系：“我确信周围有很多人不认为自己是国家社会主义者，他们和我一样担心政治和人口统计的退化趋势，并且我想找到他们。”除此之外，他只是想与比过去几年更接近稳定性和可靠性范围正常端的人打交道。 “我去过的地方有太多疯子。”

有一天，皮尔斯正在看电视，看到了对一个名为“全国青年联盟”的组织主席的采访，他的名字叫卢·拜尔斯。在此之前，皮尔斯对拜尔斯和全国青年联盟都不熟悉。皮尔斯从电视采访中了解到，NYA是针对大学生的，以反对校园里的1960世纪1964年代反主流文化为导向。纽约时报将反主流文化定义为反越战情绪、对消遣性毒品使用的同情、与黑人激进分子结盟以及普遍反权威、反建制的姿态。基本上，NYA 是另一个组织“美国青年争取自由”的激进保守版本，该组织得到了 XNUMX 年共和党总统候选人巴里·戈德华特等主流保守派的支持。

“我想和这个拜尔斯谈谈，”皮尔斯自言自语道。尽管皮尔斯本质上不是一个组织类型，而且他当然不喜欢行政工作，但他还是决定需要与某种组织联系起来，而这个全国青年联盟听起来好像是一个很好的可能性。纳粹不太适合，但如果没有组织的配合，他确实无法独自运作。他相信自己可以写得很好，并且能够抓住问题的核心，而这正是人们自己做的事情；但问题是，他一个人经营，无法表达自己想表达的东西。你不可能在完全真空中成为一名作家，哪个出版商会碰他想写的那种东西？事实上，他需要组织环境和支持来向他想要接触的人传达他想说的话。另外，尽管他不是一个“善于交际的人”，但他确实想与其他人建立对话，而成为一个组织的一部分——或者经营一个组织，是的，拥有一个自己的组织——将是一个很好的方式。

皮尔斯安排与拜尔斯会面，了解全国青年联盟的内幕。原来，这个组织的设立者是一个名叫威利斯·卡托的人。[181]约翰·乔治和莱尔德·威尔科克斯， 纳粹分子、共产主义者、三K党成员和其他边缘人士 （纽约州布法罗：Prometheus Books，1992 年），第 252-255 页。 卡托的众多活动之一——他已经 70 多岁了，仍然精力充沛——是成立了一家出版社 Noontide Press。 Noontide Press 出版的一本书在激进右翼圈子中引起了广泛关注，尽管目前尚不清楚到底有多少人真正读过这本厚重的 680 页论文——皮尔斯说他还没有读过—— 帝国，1947 年由美国人弗朗西斯·帕克·约基（Francis Parker Yockey）在爱尔兰写成。[182]弗朗西斯·帕克·约基， 帝国：历史与政治哲学 （加利福尼亚州科斯塔梅萨：Noontide Press，1991 年，首次出版于 1947 年）。 帝国 受到奥斯瓦尔德·斯宾格勒（Oswald Spengler）影响，呼吁为“西方灵魂的有机基础”的生存而斗争，反对使其患病的“外来势力”。[183]同上，p。 xvi。
（弗朗西斯·帕克·约基， 帝国：历史与政治哲学 （加利福尼亚州科斯塔梅萨：Noontide Press，1991 年，首次出版于 1947 年）。） 卡托为这本书的美国出版商写了一篇长篇介绍。

约基的外表、生活方式和性格极大地提高了人们对他的衍生作品的兴趣。他身材苗条、英俊，与拉尔夫·费因斯 (Ralph Fiennes) 很相像，这个神秘人物在 1950 世纪 XNUMX 年代游历欧洲和美国，从事未具体说明的右翼政治活动，并以某种方式谋生（他是一名律师）。约基的一项众所周知的事业是：他帮助在伦敦成立了一个名为欧洲解放阵线的短命组织。据报道，联邦调查局一直在密切关注他。卡托曾与约基待过一段时间，他在简介中描述了他 帝国 “沉思、敏感、有魅力”，并且拥有“快速、了解的智慧”。约基的卡托写道：“他的眼睛透露着伟大的秘密、知识和可怕的悲伤。”[184]同上，p。 十四。
（弗朗西斯·帕克·约基， 帝国：历史与政治哲学 （加利福尼亚州科斯塔梅萨：Noontide Press，1991 年，首次出版于 1947 年）。） 约基无意中将其留在得克萨斯州沃思堡机场的手提箱中，被发现装有七张出生证明、德国新闻证件以及美国、加拿大和英国的护照，这些护照的照片相同，但姓名不同。[185]乔治和威尔科克斯，p。 255. 1960 年，他因护照欺诈罪被关押在旧金山的一所监狱中，享年 XNUMX 岁，至今仍是人们猜测的话题——是他们所说的氰化物自杀，还是被中央情报局谋杀？

1999 年，约翰·威廉·金 (John William King) 因在德克萨斯州犯下的野蛮罪行被定罪并被判处死刑，约基 (Yockey) 被约翰·威廉·金 (John William King) 援引，该事件引起了全国头版的广泛报道。一名名叫詹姆斯·伯德 (James Byrd) 的黑人男子在凌晨参加完一场聚会步行回家时被抓住，开车到一条乡间小路上遭到殴打，然后用脚踝将他锁在一辆皮卡车上，拖了三英里才痛苦地死去。身体被撕成碎片。 （皮尔斯的名字出现在案件中，据称金在犯罪期间说了一些大意是“我们正在开始《特纳日记》！”）判决后，金发表了一份声明：“尽管我仍然坚信自己是清白的，从一开始就很明显，这个社区会得到他们想要的东西；我将以弗朗西斯·约基 (Francis Yockey) 的话作为结束语。 “成功的希望属于那些在无法再自豪地生活时却决心自豪地死去的人。”[186]迈克尔·格拉奇克（Michael Graczyk），“陪审团将德克萨斯州杀手送进死囚牢房” 伯灵顿自由出版社，26 年 1999 月 1 日，第 XNUMX 页。 XNUMXA。

1968年，阿拉巴马州州长乔治·华莱士以民粹主义纲领作为第三方候选人竞选总统。卡托和皮尔斯成立了一个名为“华莱士青年”的组织，并在该旗帜下发出信件要求捐款。华莱士竞选结束后，卡托成立了一个新组织——全国青年联盟，在华盛顿设立了一个不同的邮筒，并将其交给了他的雇员卢·拜尔斯。拜尔斯利用卡托通过青年支持华莱士组织建立的邮件列表，发出了数十万封筹款信。在与拜尔斯的会面中，皮尔斯了解到 NYA 的情况并不顺利。拜尔斯告诉他，该公司即将倒闭，因为邮件无法带来足够的资金来支付成本，因此该组织将陷入财务困境。

拜尔斯告诉皮尔斯，纽约市政府背负着 50 万美元的债务，几个月内就会耗尽信贷。皮尔斯告诉拜尔斯，他认为全国青年联盟是一种很好的青年文化，当时正在校园和主流媒体上大力宣传。这个想法的核心是，表现出对权威的不尊重、嘲笑传统和政府、没有个人纪律的生活以及吸毒是很酷的。大量大学生被诱导在越南战争中站在敌人一边。但是，皮尔斯向拜尔斯断言，你必须拥有一个真正的组织，而不仅仅是你现在拥有的那种筹款工具。你必须回馈那些贡献钱财的人。皮尔斯正在考虑示威、校园活动之类的事情，特别是他想到了一份针对年轻激进分子的小报。

皮尔斯告诉拜尔斯，他有兴趣接手 NYA 并将其作为自己的组织来运营，在拜尔斯的建议和支持下，他就这么做了。拜尔斯和皮尔斯之间没有进行正式的所有权转让。拜尔斯已将 NYA 合并到哥伦比亚特区，但当他和皮尔斯见面时，他已经在其他地方工作了，用皮尔斯的话说，哥伦比亚特区的 NYA 已经“死了”。皮尔斯在弗吉尼亚州以该名称成立了一家公司。他在阿灵顿租了办公室，用他的话说“开始做生意”。作为顾问委员会主席，他的 NYA 信头上有拜尔斯的名字。拜尔斯告诉他，一个名字熟悉的顾问委员会将有助于提高该组织的信誉。顾问委员会的其他成员包括两名退役军人，海军上将约翰·克罗梅林和海军陆战队中将佩德罗·德尔·瓦莱，以及伊利诺伊大学的古典学教授雷维洛·P·奥利弗。皮尔斯整理了他撰写和编辑的一份新小报的第一期，名为 攻击！。他向拜尔斯借了两千美元将其打印出来，并通过拜尔斯向他提供的邮件列表发送给一万五千人。皮尔斯将这次邮寄描述为“立即成功”，因为它带来了六千美元的回报。这让皮尔斯踏上了新事业的道路。 1974 年，他终止了全国青年联盟并成立了全国联盟，其中包括在弗吉尼亚州成立一家新公司。标题中删除“青年”一词反映了朝着更广泛、更具包容性的方向发展的趋势。从那时起，国家联盟和威廉·皮尔斯实际上就成了同义词。

皮尔斯竭尽全力使他的第一个独立组织活动全国青年联盟取得成功。他从黎明工作到深夜，周一至周五睡在办公室的沙发上。他只在周末才能见到妻子和两个儿子。他决定，为了使其发挥作用，NYA 必须成为他的首要任务，而且实际上是唯一的优先任务，而其他一切，包括他的家庭和人际关系以及他自己的个人福祉，都将处于次要地位。到它。这种观点和方法与他从萧伯纳戏剧中吸收的信息是一致的 人与超人 这对他产生了很大的影响。这是他第一次真正有机会实现Shaw的理念。全国青年联盟将成为他服务生命力的工具。在皮尔斯看来，他通过他将建立的组织所取得的成就是在更大的计划中唯一真正重要的事情。与他生命的这一部分相比，其他一切都显得黯然失色。

除了全身心投入这项努力的哲学理由外，皮尔斯认为考虑到他所处的事实，这样做是现实的。他对这种情况的解读是，如果这个冒险项目，NYA，将会成功——总的来说，他独自一人承担着这个组织，自己建立了这个组织，这个组织在别人手中失败了——它将占用他的一切，所有的时间和注意力。他不能把精力花在其他地方。

这种“工作第一，需要我全力以赴”的观点，源于生命力仆人对生命意义的概念，并通过以下观念得到强化：眼前的事实由于形势的需要，皮尔斯在全国青年联盟的最初几年里就牢牢地抓住了这一点。直到今天，这种观点仍然伴随着他。现在，在其他人都退休并照料花园的年纪，皮尔斯却夜以继日地工作。有几次我向他提出了减少一些工作时间的可能性，但他根本没有考虑这个想法。 “不，我承担不起那样的代价，”他很快就坚持道。 “要削减开支，需要做的事情太多了。”我很清楚他真的相信这一点。我必须说，他似乎在身体和精神上都能很好地承受他投入的令人难以置信的长时间工作，而且他似乎对自己所做的事情感到高兴。我从未听他抱怨过他投入工作的时间。

整个 1970 年代，皮尔斯的妻子帕特里夏实际上是家里唯一的经济支柱。他说，那些年他“躲避收钞员，紧紧抓住指尖”。他告诉我，他终于达到了每月支付五十美元的水平。十年间，他多次搬家，最终占据了一栋以前是钟表匠工厂的小建筑。随着时间的推移，他能够聘请一名秘书并购买设备，这将使他能够在内部完成所有印刷工作，并节省了外包的时间和成本。

小报的制作和发行 攻击！ 以及它的继任者，另一份小报，这个叫 国民先锋队皮尔斯于 1978 年开始出版，是 NYA/NA 当年的核心活动。关于从 攻击！ 至 国民先锋队, 皮尔斯说 攻击！ 在他看来，该出版物适合主要针对年轻人的出版物，并且 国民先锋队 似乎更适合更广泛的受众。他说，随着时间的推移，他试图提高联盟出版物的质量，并赋予该组织更严肃的形象。特别是，随着组织的成熟，他试图降低夸夸其谈和耸人听闻的程度。反映了这种方法的变化 、国家先锋队 1982年从小报转变为光滑纸杂志。 出击！/国民先锋队 每年大约有八期。在目前的时间， 国民先锋队 问题尚未解决。皮尔斯将该杂志描述为“假死”，直到他找到新的编辑。他说他根本没有时间投入其中。

制作和分发小报并不是 NYA/NA 早年的唯一活动。他们自己举办一些小型示威活动，有时也会在其他人的示威活动上贴上标签，作为宣传自己想法的一种方式。 1975 年，爱德华·莱维 (Edward Levi) 被杰拉尔德·福特 (Gerald Ford) 总统任命为司法部长，皮尔斯将其描述为具有极左背景的犹太人，其中包括参与全国律师协会。皮尔斯说，联盟有大约二十个纠察队在司法部周围游行，标语指出莱维的种族和过去的隶属关系，但媒体完全忽视了他们。他说，更成功的努力是当他的二十五名左右的人在华盛顿的越南战争示威期间举着巨大的横幅时。横幅的大意是，正如皮尔斯对我所说的那样，美国“要么‘用核武器’攻击河内，要么滚出越南。”皮尔斯认为战争是一件极其严肃的事情。每天都在失去年轻的生命。如果事关重大，情况必须打仗的话，就应该全力以赴，以最快的速度取得决定性的胜利。否则一开始就不要介入。没有蹑手蹑脚地走来走去。如果你要打架， 战斗，提供您可以使用的一切资源。

全国联盟的另一项活动是周日晚上的会议，该会议始于 1975 年，当时皮尔斯的办公室足够大，可以容纳被他们吸引的人数（1987 到 XNUMX 人）。皮尔斯会放映电影并发表演讲，以阐述联盟背后的信念框架及其（也就是说，他的）美好生活和美好社会的愿景。该联盟还制作了一系列针对年轻人的漫画书。艺术作品很业余，对话冗长而生硬。但话又说回来，这些漫画书的准备工作肯定投入了大量的时间和精力，它们反映了皮尔斯为传达他的信息而愿意付出的努力。 XNUMX 年，他成立了一家独立的公司 National Vanguard Books，负责处理所有的出版和销售业务。

然后是从 1991 年开始的每周广播节目，传播他的信息， 美国持不同政见者之声。该节目通过短波在全国各地的几个 AM 电台上播出——电台会发生变化，并且随着电台添加和删除有争议的节目，节目数量也会发生变化。 2000 年，共有 XNUMX 个 AM 电台覆盖亚利桑那州、德克萨斯州、阿拉巴马州、宾夕法尼亚州、罗德岛州、康涅狄格州、缅因州和佛罗里达州。 ADV 广播估计全世界有十万人。

目前，皮尔斯完全独自处理广播节目。他在办公室的电脑上编写脚本。一个节目有十页双倍行距，大约三千字。然后，他在总部大楼二楼的录音室录制节目，并将节目磁带邮寄给播放该节目的广播电台。伊芙琳·希尔 (Evelyn Hill) 将其发布在国家联盟网站上 (www.natvan.com）， 将其发送给电子邮件列表中的人员，并使用这些脚本作为每月订阅（每年 40 美元）桌面出版物的基础，该出版物称为 自由言论。伊芙琳找到了每篇文章中包含的四篇文章的图片 自由言论 问题。

“当我为广播节目写作时，”皮尔斯告诉我，“我不像为像这样的杂志写作时要求那么高 国民先锋队。当我为印刷品写作时，我想人们会关注这一点，并且每个词都必须是正确的。我不能有草率的措辞。但当我为广播节目写作时，它就更加对话化了。我重复一些事情是为了强调，而且我不太小心如何发展一个想法。你必须在口头表达上简单一点，因为人们无法回去研究文本并让想法进入他们的头脑。你必须强调你所说的话，所以它必须简短而尖锐。”

当皮尔斯录制一首歌曲时我和他在一起 美国持不同政见者之声 程序。他坐在办公室的办公桌前，从电脑屏幕上大声朗读完成的剧本，以进行校对，并听听播出时的声音。他说，通常他需要大约两天的时间来准备剧本。当他对自己整理的内容感到满意时，他打印了一份副本并将其带到楼上的录音室，这是总部大楼中唯一铺着地毯的房间。他转动位于木桌上的大控制台上的旋钮，将麦克风夹在他的 T 恤上，然后坐在他所谓的“隔音”塑料椅子上，我认为这是指不会吱吱作响的椅子。我在那里的那天，他说“噗，噗，噗”来测试声级，然后他就准备走了。

皮尔斯穿着 T 恤、牛仔裤和工作靴，腰间系着枪，坐在塑料椅子上，录制他写的剧本。他左手拿着剧本，离脸几英寸。随着节目的第一节，他的性格就发生了变化。他从成熟、清醒、和蔼可亲，变成了声音响亮、刺耳、边缘化。我一直认为皮尔斯的广播节目读起来比听起来好。

录音开始不久，皮尔斯无意中听到了一个词，他向前伸手按下按钮，停止了整个过程。 “哦，我不知道我为什么要这样做！”他惊呼道。 “布罗考是如何做到这一点的？”然后他又从那时开始。另一个错误。 “哦地狱！”停下来重新开始。错误。 “天啊！”这样一直持续到他最终把它记录下来。

皮尔斯那天记录的节目与当时正在发生的一场危机有关（当时是 1997 年末），伊拉克拒绝允许联合国视察队检查其境内的生物和化学武器。[187]该广播以威廉·皮尔斯的名字出版，“揭露战争贩子”， 自由言论，卷。 3、没有。 12，1997 年 12 月，第 15-XNUMX 页。

1991年，我们轰炸了巴格达，屠杀了超过100,000万伊拉克人，因为他们入侵了科威特——事实上科威特在殖民时期被夺走之前曾经属于他们。然后我们对战败的伊拉克人实施了严重的经济禁运——这一禁运在过去六年中造成了大约XNUMX万伊拉克婴儿和儿童的死亡，并且由于以色列的坚持而得以维持。因此，伊拉克人现在有充分的理由恨我们，但如果我们不干涉他们，就没有理由试图伤害我们。伊拉克的利益在中东，而且只在中东。

我们之所以走向另一场与伊拉克的战争，完全是因为犹太人对美国政府的影响。这当然不是因为我们担心伊拉克发展大规模杀伤性武器。如果我们认真对待这类事情，我们就会阻止以色列发展其化学、生物和核武库。我们的政府允许犹太人拥有大规模杀伤性武器，但伊拉克人却不能拥有这些武器，原因是犹太人控制着美国的新闻和娱乐媒体，从而对政治权力行使有效控制。过程——而伊拉克人则没有。这就是 仅由 原因。

皮尔斯录制节目后，他添加了一段预先录制的标准介绍，讲述了国家联盟的情况，并添加了一个“结尾”，结尾告诉听众如何联系该组织。然后他将磁带邮寄到播出该节目的电台。下午三点左右，皮尔斯录制了我观察到的有关伊拉克的节目。那天晚上 7 点 30 分，他正在办公室里听录音带。从他脸上的表情来看，他似乎对计划的结果很满意，并且沉浸在自己正在做的事情中。他在拖车里与艾琳娜设置的对讲机响了。他没有回答。

主要通过伊芙琳·希尔 (Evelyn Hill) 的努力，国家联盟网站于 1990 世纪 XNUMX 年代中期建立。皮尔斯报告说，现在每天有十二到两万次“点击”，这意味着计算机每天会多次与他的网站联系。联盟网站包括有关该组织及其出版物的信息、皮尔斯无线电广播的副本以及与二十多个当地全国联盟单位取得联系并建立海外联系的方法（其中包括德国的国家民主党和德国的国家联盟）。英国国家党）。该网站还有一个来自浏览器的信件部分，其中包括赞扬皮尔斯和他的信息的信件和电子邮件，以及一些对他们两人的严厉批评。当我检查时，他在“浏览器来信”部分中包含的批评都是粗俗和粗俗的谴责（“嘿，你这个白色拖车垃圾......”）。我向皮尔斯提到，我读过类似的信件，只不过它们在我刚刚完成的一本由艾伦·德肖维茨（Alan Dershowitz）撰写的书中从相反的角度出发。 CHUTZPAH （“你是个混蛋……害羞的人。”）[188]艾伦·德肖维兹（Alan Dershowitz）， CHUTZPAH （波士顿：Little，Brown，1991），第 94 页。 XNUMX.

“听着，”皮尔斯回答道，“这是一种历史悠久的方式来抹黑那些反对你的人。你所做的就是将他们全部与其中最低的联系起来。德肖维茨发表这些信件让人觉得任何以任何方式反对犹太人的人都是无知的偏执狂，这让讨论停止了。这种事情在1950世纪60年代和XNUMX年代的民权革命期间做得特别有效。有许多有思想、正直的人反对当时对美国所做的事情。例如，卡尔顿·普特南（Carleton Putnam）是一家大型航空公司的负责人。[189]参见卡尔顿·普特南， 种族和原因：洋基观点 （华盛顿：公共事务出版社，1961 年）。 但媒体忽视了他，而是把注意力集中在那些懒汉和白人垃圾以及他们对正在发生的事情的反应上。人们会看到一些低贱的人，脸因仇恨而扭曲，对黑人大喊不合语法的咒骂，然后想：“我不想和那个人有任何联系。”那个大喊大叫的人看到自己的生命受到威胁，做了他唯一知道该怎么做的事情，但观看视频的人们无法超越他的风格来理解他所反对的事情。当我们在网站上发布信件时，我们使用相同的技术。有很多非常聪明、有文化的人反对我们，但我们发表的信件却暴露了仇恨、扭曲的思想等等。”

目前，全国联盟是一个缴纳会费的会员组织，会员每月交纳十美元。一些成员自愿捐款超过这个数额。附近有二十个地方单位的领导人都是皮尔斯挑选的。然而，该联盟的许多成员并不属于当地单位。该联盟的地方单位运作相当自主。皮尔斯确实没有资源来监督他们。一个地方单位的活力，很大程度上取决于单位领导的能力。克利夫兰和奥兰多的单位尤其活跃，定期举行会议、组织活动、演讲和庆祝活动等，参加人数众多。皮尔斯没有透露国家联盟的成员人数。我的猜测是，该联盟的成员数量在两千人左右，而且近年来其增长速度不断加快。

在国家联盟中央办公室与皮尔斯一起工作的两个关键人物是鲍勃·德马雷和伊芙琳·希尔。这两个人对皮尔斯来说都是无价的，而且都工作很长时间。他们不可能为了钱而这样做。我相信他们每月的工资在一千美元左右，而且没有任何福利。他们可能会从皮尔斯那里得到一些住房方面的帮助。我到达时鲍勃刚刚在这片土地上建了一座房子，我不知道他是否需要缴纳任何房地产税。伊芙琳住在这片土地上原来的农舍里，她可能不需要为此支付任何费用。我真的不知道；我没有和任何校长谈论过这件事。不管怎样，鲍勃和伊芙琳在极右政治领域的工作并没有致富。

鲍勃是阿肯色科技大学的前营销学教授。他负责皮尔斯运营的业务和营销工作。他拥有俄克拉荷马大学的博士学位。当我到达时，鲍勃已经和皮尔斯一起在西弗吉尼亚州工作了几年。当我在这处房产时，我和鲍勃住在一起。他的房子是预制的。他告诉我，地基打好后，一台大起重机就将房子分段放在地基上。鲍勃的房子非常简陋，一层有四个小房间。它有一个步入式地下室，鲍勃计划在那里建几个房间，这将使房子实际上变成两层楼。我在那里的时候，甲板已经部分完成。鲍勃的房子里的特色——木制品、管道装置和其他——并没有让我觉得完全是顶级的。尽管一切都是新的，但在我住宿期间，厕所一直在流水，水漏到地板上。

当我在那里时，鲍勃刚刚搬进他的新房子，本来可以作为起居室的房间里堆满了箱子，门也关着。这样就只剩下厨房、鲍勃的卧室和我的卧室了。两只暹罗猫和我们共用一个房子。他们几乎掌控了这个地方，并在厨房的桌子和台面上度过了很多时间。鲍勃推测，其中一个人会在鲍勃的卧室门前呕吐，以表达他对鲍勃关门并阻止他进入的不满。鲍勃不得不在门前多铺一块地毯，以保护该区域的普通地毯免受呕吐物污染。

鲍勃告诉我，皮尔斯已经指定了他的房子应该放在哪里，结果是在总部大楼左前方大约一百码处。鲍勃的房子位于皮尔斯房产的边缘，鲍勃必须从邻近房产的所有者那里购买一些土地才能找到安装水泵的地方。

鲍勃有一辆像皮尔斯的那样的新型白色雪佛兰西装外套，我会看到它停在房子前面。我将这座房子与鲍勃的西装外套联系起来。 SUV前部的车牌所在处（显然在西弗吉尼亚州你不必有前车牌）是国家联盟车牌。上面有一道生命符文，周围写着“国盟”四个字。盘子的底部写着“迈向新意识、新秩序、新人民”。

鲍勃个子很高，大约 6 英尺 2 英寸，留着修剪整齐的灰白短发，前额稍稍后退，稀疏。我想他说他五十一岁了。他留着小胡子，戴着大金属框眼镜。他五官柔和，让我想起了约翰尼·卡森（Johnny Carson）在他这个年纪时的样子。当我在那里时，鲍勃几乎总是穿着 T 恤、牛仔裤和破旧的运动鞋，“穿着朴素”。我在酒店举行的一次会议上，他穿着一套灰色西装，看上去非常尊贵。鲍勃拥有前运动员的体格和动作。我可以想象他在他长大的南达科他州高中篮球队打前锋，尽管我不知道他是否真的这样做过。

鲍勃说话轻声细语、彬彬有礼、谦虚、尊重、谦虚、真诚。当我和他在一起时，他对我表现出的体贴和友善让我非常感动。我不必要求事情。鲍勃会对我的需要保持警惕，并会不遗余力地提供。

鲍勃说，他在“我的三个儿子”的世界里长大，那里有“两个勤奋的父母和好孩子”。他说，他小时候，家乡的人都保持着婚姻状态，那里没有毒品，也没有帮派，也很少有非婚生现象。鲍勃说，他居住的地方的成年人都以孩子和社区为导向，而不是自恋地以自己为导向。他家附近的一大群男孩会独自聚在一起打棒球。他的妹妹是布朗尼和女童子军的成员。鲍勃确实相信，他的成长方式对白人来说是自然的，并且他们已经被媒体、学校和其他地方的外来（读犹太人）影响偏离了自己的自然倾向。

鲍勃“偶然”听到了皮尔斯的一个广播节目，他所听到的内容让他印象深刻。他又听了几个节目，然后通过国家先锋图书目录订购了一些书籍，并连续阅读了两周。在那之后，他就“进来了”。他觉得自己的生活很重要，因为他来到西弗吉尼亚州与皮尔斯一起工作。此前，在大学教学中，他训练人们如何生活在他所说的“一个一团糟的世界”中。他认为归根结底，他所做的研究毫无意义；至于会议，他会去“每个人都赞扬彼此的工作”——这是一个空洞的练习。

作为工作的一部分，鲍勃每天花几个小时在电脑屏幕前，但除此之外，他很大程度上拒绝技术和现代文化。自 1992 年以来，他就没有再看过电视，因为他认为电视代表了与他的信仰相反的价值观和方式——多元文化、自由主义、犹太教、世界主义。他问我关于演出的事 宋飞，他听说过但从未见过。 “宋飞是犹太人，扮演犹太人，对吧？”他问我。在我回答之前，他补充道：“节目中的每个人都是犹太人，对吧？”然后很快问道：“他们经常争吵吗？”显然他认为犹太人经常争论。鲍勃接着说，他认为三个臭皮匠的行为就像犹太人。

鲍勃相信我们生活在一个伪复杂的时代。他更喜欢他读的赞恩·格雷西部小说的世界。老西方小说和电影都有直截了当的好人/坏人情节，反映了他想要的一种优雅的简单生活。他收藏了一些老西部电影，虽然我不知道他什么时候能在没有录​​像机的情况下看到它们。

鲍勃读了很多书，我问他会向我推荐什么书。他想了想，然后说道：“你读过吗？” 土壤的生长 克努特·汉姆生？”后来我查了这本书和汉姆生。汉姆生是一位挪威作家，荣获诺贝尔文学奖。他写了 土壤的生长 。[190]克努特·哈姆森 土壤的生长 （纽约：Knopf，1921年）。 这是皮尔斯通过国家先锋图书公司销售的书籍之一。鲍勃在目录中为这本书写了简介。

小说的中心人物白伊萨乍一看似乎是一个简单的人。他在荒野中寻找良田和好女人。她的名字叫英格，他们一起建造并保护他们的农场和家人。有一千个问题需要解决，但伊萨克和英格的力量、意志和智慧为他们解决了大部分问题……土地和家庭：这是我们生存的目的。它是雅利安人灵魂的一部分，是我们与过去和未来的联系。[191]《国家先锋图书目录》，第 17 期，1997 年 47 月发行，第 XNUMX 页。 XNUMX.

第二次世界大战后，哈姆生因在德国占领挪威期间鼓励同胞与德国人合作而受到起诉。一部好电影， 哈姆森由马克斯·冯·赛多 (Max von Sydow) 主演的影片几年前上映，主要讲述了汉姆生生活的这一部分。

鲍勃选择了通过国家先锋图书目录销售的许多书籍。他非常喜欢的一本大人小孩都喜欢的书是 水獭塔卡 英国作家亨利·威廉姆森所著。[192]亨利·威廉姆森, 水獭塔卡 （纽约：EP Dutton，1936）。 水獭塔卡 写于 1917 年，并且，与 土壤的生长，其作者由于对纳粹的同情而遇到了问题。 1940 年，威廉姆森因反对对德战争而被捕。

鲍勃是终身单身汉，我认为他对此有些遗憾。他给我看了一封他写给佛罗里达州一位女士的信，是她写给联盟的一封信的回应，信中询问该组织是做什么的，以及该组织将如何改变她的生活。皮尔斯已将信交给鲍勃并要求他回复她。鲍勃写了一封信的草稿给她并给我看了。在其中，他谈到了自己的生活。 “在过去的 30 年里，”他写道，“我遇到的一些女性本可以成为出色的妻子和母亲。但我能感觉到责任的爪子在我周围收紧。我知道单身我会“更快乐”。但我现在意识到，生命的唯一目的就是生命。并不是像基督徒所相信的那样去天堂，而是延续生命的链条。婴儿比上天堂更珍贵。我希望孩子们给我带来他们涂过颜色的图片，也希望他们的孩子也给他们带来他们涂过颜色的图片。我希望这个循环能够一直持续下去。”

我想鲍勃非常希望有一个妻子和家人来分享他在西弗吉尼亚州的新家和新生活。不过，我不知道他在现在居住的人烟稀少的地区遇到某人的机会有多大。当皮尔斯把那位女士的信交给鲍勃并要求他写信给她时，我想知道皮尔斯是否在某种程度上扮演了媒人的角色。据我所知，皮尔斯曾为另一位与他共事的人（一个名叫凯文·斯特罗姆的人）做过这件事。在这种情况下，斯特罗姆最终与写信人结婚。

鲍勃非常钦佩皮尔斯。一方面，他认为皮尔斯是一个男人中的男人。鲍勃告诉我，几周前他们正在山顶建造一座建筑时，我没有去过这处房产，这真是太遗憾了。他说皮尔斯当时表现出了极大的勇气，爬到了离地面大约十二英尺的地方。他也非常尊重皮尔斯的智慧、坚韧和意志。他对我接获的皮尔斯的唯一担忧是，他担心皮尔斯的激烈言论，所有对暴力和革命的提及，可能会吓跑一些原本可能同意联盟观点的人。

自从我离开西弗吉尼亚州以来，我就和鲍勃失去了联系。我脑海中浮现出这样一个画面：这个安静的男人一大早就独自坐在厨房的桌子旁，旁边放着一本打开的书和黄色记号笔，吃着糖霜片。然后在深夜，在总部大楼度过了漫长的一天后，再次独自一人，同一本书，同一支记号笔，吃着电视晚餐。我希望鲍勃没事。

伊芙琳·希尔的办公室就在皮尔斯办公室的对面，从我看来，她为他提供自耕农服务。伊芙琳管理国家联盟的互联网站点，处理其（指皮尔斯的）所有信件，从网上寻找她认为可能对皮尔斯整理广播节目有用的材料，并编辑联盟月刊。 自由言论。在我看来，伊芙琳与皮尔斯和鲍勃每天工作十二小时和十三小时的做法不太相符，但很多个深夜，当我在场时，我都在总部大楼里看到了她。

我和伊芙琳几乎没有私人接触。每当我不在西弗吉尼亚州时，每当我与皮尔斯有任何业务往来时，都会通过伊芙琳来联系他，事实证明，她的反应非常灵敏且高效。但当我在房子周围时，她从来没有看过我一眼。现在想起来，我从来没有见过她和那里的任何人谈论过与任务相关的事情以外的事情。伊芙琳似乎是来完成任务的，就这样。她确实把事情做好了。

我和伊芙琳进行了一次面对面的交流。就在我计划离开这所房子的前几天的一天下午，我站在她办公室门口，问我是否可以给她拍一张照片。我举起我的小相机说：“伊芙琳，我可以给你拍张照片吗？”

她从办公桌上抬起头来，据我所知这是她第一次注视着我。她礼貌而坚定地回答：“不，我拍得不好。”

就是这样。

伊芙琳独自住在这片土地上原来的农舍里。我对她的背景了解不多。我相信她拥有药理学博士学位，并且在 1996 年来到西弗吉尼亚州之前，她曾在华盛顿州担任药剂师。我认为她是通过皮尔斯在西弗吉尼亚州举办的一年两次的领导会议之一与皮尔斯取得联系的。

我永远记得一次涉及伊芙琳的经历，这让我认识到即使是激进的政治也和其他工作一样。伊芙琳患有类风湿性关节炎。有一天，我在皮尔斯的办公室，伊芙琳提到了她缺乏健康保险，以及她担心如果她的关节炎恶化，她会发生什么。她用响亮、有些粗鲁的声音对皮尔斯说：“我想如果我真的变得很糟糕，你就会把我的东西扔到前面的草坪上，然后摆脱我。”

皮尔斯实事求是地回答道：“我会做对联盟最有利的事情。”

皮尔斯认为民族联盟是美国唯一严肃、成熟、激进的右翼组织，并认为其相当于德国的民族民主党（NPD）和英国民族党（BNP）。皮尔斯与乌多·沃伊特（Udo Voigt）主席的国家民主党（NPD）和约翰·廷德尔（John Tyndall）领导的英国国家党保持着联系。他与法国国民阵线没有任何联系，该阵线最著名的人物是让-马里·勒庞。他说，他认为勒庞更像是一个民粹主义者，而不是一个种族民族主义者。

1998 年春天，我有一次参观这处房产，皮尔斯给我看了一张他当年早些时候参加过的德国帕绍镇 NPD 集会的快照。 7 月 XNUMX 日是 NPD 的“全国抵抗日”。在场的人有六千六百人。照片中的人看起来很年轻，二十多岁，工人阶级，其中大约三分之二是男性。皮尔斯告诉我，在德国以及在这个国家，像他这样的政治派系的人们面临的问题之一是找到方法来接触受过教育的中产阶级，他认为这些人对任何社会或政治思想都有所武装。被告知是不可接受的。

德国的会议厅有成排的桌子和长凳，而不是座位。皮尔斯原定在帕绍集会上发表讲话。桌子都坐满了，人们都站在墙边。这是自 1970 年以来最大规模的 NPD 会议，也是过去十年来德国最大规模的民族主义会议。皮尔斯在一份联盟会员公告中描述了这一天，他报告说，当他接近大厅时，“现场有大量警察，数百辆绿色货车，上面写着大写字母‘警察’，在镇上的街道上巡逻，大厅附近。”[193]国家联盟公报，1998 年 3 月，第 XNUMX 页。 XNUMX. 他们期待并得到了反法西斯示威。

皮尔斯在发言席上就座。就在他计划发言前不久，一名便衣警察告诉皮尔斯，如果他站起来发言，他将被逮捕，会议也将被终止。因此皮尔斯没有发表他准备好的演讲。他是唯一一位被禁止向当天聚集的人发表讲话的发言人。

皮尔斯表示，德国的民族主义情绪正在高涨，这确实令“电视迷、建制派和犹太人”感到不安。除了国家民主党之外，还有德国人民联盟（DVU），该联盟最近赢得了一些地方选举。皮尔斯表示，民族主义情绪高涨的部分原因是一些人正在经历经济困难，但更重要的是，人们感到德国正在失去灵魂。 “你看过这部电影吗 歌舞表演？”他问我。 “这是现在正在发生的事情的完美例子。那是在魏玛时期，当时有一种颓废的感觉——享受是唯一重要的事情，当时有一个圆滑、过于复杂、自作聪明的咖啡馆社会正在占领德国，就像它正在占领德国一样。现在超过德国了。那里的人们有一种基本的本能反应，那就是这不是我们应该的行为方式。这不是真正重要的。我们的基本价值观在哪里？我们的传统在哪里？这就是民族主义冲动的意义所在。”

英国内政大臣已通知皮尔斯，他不会被允许进入该国。然而，我在西弗吉尼亚州时有传言称，皮尔斯在离开德国并与廷德尔和其他法国国民党领导人商议后不知何故潜入英国。

当我和他在一起时，欧洲记者多次联系皮尔斯寻求他的观点。有一次，他接受了一位法国记者的电话采访，询问他对勒庞和国民阵线的看法。还有一次，他接到德国发行量大的杂志记者的电话 明镜 他想来西弗吉尼亚州为杂志和德国电视台采访皮尔斯。她说她想了解他对德国正在发生的事情的看法，并了解美国白人民族主义情绪的状况。我离开后，记者拍摄了对美国摄制组的采访。当我还在的时候，皮尔斯期待着她的来访，但对德国媒体如何客观地传达他的想法表示担忧。他后来告诉我，不幸的是他的担心是有道理的。

全国青年联盟顾问委员会的一位成员是拜尔斯时期留下来的，他对皮尔斯的生活产生了重大影响。这是伊利诺伊大学的一位古典学教授，他的名字很有趣：雷维洛·P·奥利弗。人们很少会遇到具有回文名字的人——正反拼写相同。尽管我必须说，我似乎是唯一一个对奥利弗名字的奇特性感到震惊的人。我和最右边的每个人交谈过，当我会说这样的话时，“他的名字不是很有趣吗？向前和向后都一样吗？”就事论事地回答说：“哦，是的，没错”，然后就转向其他事情了。我的猜测是，为什么这个不寻常的名字对运动中的人来说并不那么重要，因为奥利弗在他们眼中的地位大大掩盖了像有趣的名字这样微不足道的东西。据报道，他在大学的一位同事称奥利弗为“肮脏的法西斯猪”，但我所采访过的政治光谱这一端的每个人显然都认为他是世界上最优秀的人。他们谈论他时既尊敬又喜爱。

奥利弗让我印象深刻的第二件事（继名字之后）是他雄伟的外表。从照片来看，他身高约 6 英尺 5 英寸，体重约 XNUMX 磅。他在我见过的所有合影中占据主导地位，尤其是在他年轻、更有活力的时候。

1969 年，奥利弗为卢·拜尔斯的全国青年联盟制作了一部宣传片，片中他直接对着镜头讲话。他在电影中的出现给人一种这个人的感觉，或者至少是他选择投射的形象。[194]雷维洛·P·奥利弗， 五十年后，原片录像带（西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：National Vanguard Books，1995 年）。 他坐在一间摆满书籍的书房里的桌子旁，书房里有古色古香的台灯和墙上的老照片，看起来就像十九世纪的东西。当奥利弗为全国青年联盟拍摄这部电影时，他已经六十一岁了。 （他于 1994 年去世，享年 1930 岁。）他的外表和举止都像一位老教授。他穿着深蓝色西装，系着保守的领带，左胸西装外套口袋里整齐地叠着一块白色手帕。他稀疏的黑发被浇过水，并严格地向后梳着，留着黑胡子。他没有戴眼镜。他的声音清晰而有力，态度自信而严肃，尽管在谈到政敌的滑稽动作时，他时不时露出一丝讽刺的微笑。奥利弗身上流露出一种令人敬畏的品质。他看起来是一个你不想与你站在对立面的人。对于那些了解 40 世纪 XNUMX 年代和 XNUMX 年代讽刺作家罗伯特·本奇利 (Robert Benchley) 的读者来说，奥利弗让我想起了本奇利 (Robert Benchley) 的一个更黑暗、略带恶毒的版本。认识奥利弗的人告诉我，我没有从他的电影角色中感受到他的温柔、温暖和善良。

如果要写一部白人民族主义的历史，奥利弗肯定会在其中占据突出地位，但在此背景下，重要的是他在皮尔斯的生活中所扮演的重要角色。在华盛顿与奥利弗的一次午餐会改变了皮尔斯的人生轨迹。 （稍后会详细介绍。）有多少偶然事件影响了皮尔斯的生活。如果他看到洛克威尔试图在圣地亚哥发表演讲的那天没有看电视，他的生活会有什么不同？或者如果罗克韦尔没有回信，或者如果他写信的其他人已经回信了呢？或者如果他没有在电视上看到拜尔斯呢？现在奥利弗：如果奥利弗没有加入皮尔斯从拜尔斯手中接管的组织的董事会怎么办？

雷维洛·奥利弗 (Revilo Oliver) 是约翰·伯奇协会 (John Birch Society) 的创始成员之一，并为威廉·巴克利 (William Buckley) 杂志撰写了多篇文章 国家评论 在其早年。当奥利弗公开表达的种族观点令其领导层感到不安时，奥利弗与桦木协会分道扬镳。据说奥利弗在向美国革命的保守派女儿们发表的一次演讲中指出，在一个主要由杂种人居住的岛屿上，巴蒂斯塔将军领导下的卡斯特罗之前的古巴政府可能正如人们合理预期的那样好。 。[195]约翰·乔治和莱尔德·威尔科克斯， 纳粹分子、共产党人、三K党成员和其他人 边缘地带 （纽约州布法罗：普罗米修斯图书，1992 年），第 220 页。 XNUMX. 奥利弗公开的反犹太主义使他也有类似的经历 不受欢迎的人 在 国家评论。据报道，在一次公开会议上，奥利弗将犹太人“蒸发”的想法称为“幸福的愿景”。[196]马丁·李, 野兽再次苏醒 （波士顿：Little，Brown，1997），第 435 页。 XNUMX.

奥利弗的著作已被收集并出版在一本书中，名为 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育.[197]雷维洛·P·奥利弗， 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育 （伦敦：伦敦，1981 年）。 该书在伦敦出版。奥利弗在书中所说的内容是否会被这个国家的出版和发行行业接受是值得怀疑的。美国律师兼修正主义历史学家萨姆·迪克森（Sam Dickson）在该藏品的介绍中（在极右翼，“修正主义者”一词指的是那些反对他们所认为的犹太自由党关于二战的官方路线的人） （特别是大屠杀）将奥利弗称为“种族民族主义运动的领导者”。[198]同上，PV
（雷维洛·奥利弗， 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育 （伦敦：伦敦，1981 年）。） 迪克森在介绍中指出，奥利弗关注的是白人的种族自爱，而不是对黑人或犹太人的敌意。迪克森说，奥利弗认为白人最好效仿犹太人对自己的人民和传统所表现出的忠诚。[199]同上，px
（雷维洛·奥利弗， 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育 （伦敦：伦敦，1981 年）。）

为了理解奥利弗和皮尔斯等种族主义者，我们必须记住，他们将人类视为一种动物，就像自然界中的任何其他动物一样。对他们来说，人类是动物的一种，而种族是亚种或品种。也就是说，他们看到的不仅仅是一个人类。他们看到一个人，或人类动物，以及许多人类种族。奥利弗写道：“自由主义者总是在谈论‘全人类’，这个术语没有特定的含义，就像生物学中的平行术语一样，例如‘所有有袋动物’或‘犬属的所有物种’，但狂热分子赋予这个词神秘而特殊的含义……[这给不同人类物种的明显多样性带来了]超验的统一。”[200]同上，第。 80。
（雷维洛·奥利弗， 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育 （伦敦：伦敦，1981 年）。） 奥利弗认为，自由主义者“疯狂且常常是歇斯底里地努力压制有关遗传学的科学知识以及不同人类亚种之间以及特定亚种个体之间明显的先天差异”。[201]同上。
（雷维洛·奥利弗， 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育 （伦敦：伦敦，1981 年）。）

“我得出了结论，”奥利弗在他的一篇著作中说道。 美国的衰落”，“我们的种族（北欧背景的人），特别是美国人，是一个有生存能力的物种，因此，像所有有生存能力的动物物种一样，它有一种与生俱来的生存和延续的本能。”[202]同上，第。 58。
（雷维洛·奥利弗， 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育 （伦敦：伦敦，1981 年）。） 他相信他的种族并没有意识到他们在这个星球上的不稳定地位：“雅利安人[印欧人、北欧人、非犹太人]是这个星球上的少数濒临灭绝的少数民族，但我们种族中有多少成员似乎拥有甚至对这个事实有一丝一毫的了解吗？”[203]同上，第。 96。
（雷维洛·奥利弗， 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育 （伦敦：伦敦，1981 年）。）

雅利安人比其他人种优越吗？奥利弗说，这取决于你在回答这个问题时所带来的价值观。 “我们必须明白，”他辩称，“所有种族都自然地认为自己优于其他所有种族……我们和其他所有种族一样都是一个种族。如果我们根据自己的标准来归因于自己在智力、道德或其他方面的优越性，那么我们只是沉迷于同义反复。与所有其他物种一样，人类优越性的唯一客观标准是生物学上的：强者生存，弱者灭亡。当今人类最优秀的种族，无论是凭借其技术还是其繁殖能力，都将在一个过度拥挤的星球上为生存而进行的直接斗争中取得胜利。”[204]同上，p。 94-95。
（雷维洛·奥利弗， 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育 （伦敦：伦敦，1981 年）。） 奥利弗认为，人类的素质不能仅通过智力、学业成绩或对某一职业的熟练程度来判断。他用“mattoids”（他称之为“mattoids”）来证明自己的观点。这些人在某些领域是天才，但在另一些领域却是愚蠢的。奥利弗列出的马托伊德的例子有雪莱、爱因斯坦、列宁、托洛茨基和毛泽东。[205]同上，第233-234页。
（雷维洛·奥利弗， 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育 （伦敦：伦敦，1981 年）。）

奥利弗试图将种族与集体生活质量联系起来。他认为，如果你想了解一个社会的本质，你就必须超越政治、经济安排和地理因素。你需要考虑社会的种族构成以及诸如谁与谁生孩子以及进入和离开社会的人的种族等敏感问题。他认为，“一个文明的衰落，总是伴随着[种族]构成的变化和人口素质的下降。”[206]同上，第。 231。
（雷维洛·奥利弗， 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育 （伦敦：伦敦，1981 年）。）

奥利弗将种族与他的保守政治联系起来，他指出美国雅利安白人正受到自由派主导的政府的威胁。[207]同上，p。 231-232。
（雷维洛·奥利弗， 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育 （伦敦：伦敦，1981 年）。） 他断言，“政府对我们的权力正在被用来……加速我们作为一个民族的恶化，加速我们作为一个民族的消失，除了大规模屠杀之外……不惜一切手段……仅举一个小例子，许多国家现在都在掏腰包”他们的纳税人补贴和促进私生子的繁殖，除了极少数的例外，私生子都是我们人口中最底层、道德上不负责任、精神上软弱的人的产物。”但尽管我们受到攻击，他辩称，“我们的‘大大脑’（左派知识分子）……向我们保证，邪恶到为了生存而战是不可想象的。”[208]同上，第。 238。
（雷维洛·奥利弗， 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育 （伦敦：伦敦，1981 年）。）

奥利弗对自由主义者进行了长篇大论：“自由主义者对‘人权’大肆咆哮，但稍加思考就足以表明……唯一的权利是稳定社会的公民通过协议或长期惯例获得的法律效力，赐予自己。”[209]同上，第。 81。
（雷维洛·奥利弗， 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育 （伦敦：伦敦，1981 年）。） 他认为，美国社会“被如此巧妙地操纵，以至于我们的公民不再拥有不能以社会福利名义撤销的宪法权利。实际上，这里没有公民，只有群众处于一种不加区别的平等状态，一种 事实上的 奴隶制。”[210]同上。
（雷维洛·奥利弗， 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育 （伦敦：伦敦，1981 年）。）

奥利弗还对心理学（不言而喻的形容词是犹太人）进行了严厉批评，他声称心理学证明了“在这个国家迅速普及的怪诞信念，即人是一种愚蠢的生物，政府和治疗行业必须保护他免受社会甚至他自己的侵害” ”。他引用一位作家的话说：“精神分析学家……努力免除病人对他的困难的所有责任，并将其转嫁给社会。”[211]同上，第。 166。
（雷维洛·奥利弗， 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育 （伦敦：伦敦，1981 年）。）

奥利弗说，目前强加给我们国家的福利国家“每年都剥夺了我们为自己的生活做决定的部分权力。很明显，如果这个过程再持续几十年（因为我们的主人拿我们的钱来贿赂和欺骗群众的权力可能不可避免），我们将……成为由残酷和不人道的官僚机构管理的人类牲畜。更惨无人道的主人的命令。”[212]同上，第。 237。
（雷维洛·奥利弗， 美国的衰落：保守主义者的教育 （伦敦：伦敦，1981 年）。）

奥利弗为全国青年联盟制作的宣传视频电影剧本（同样，这是在皮尔斯接手之前完成的）同年在威利斯·卡托的杂志上发表 美国水星 杂志（卡托众多企业中的另一家）做了很少的小改动。[213]雷维洛·P·奥利弗，《五十年后》 美国水星， 不。 494，1969 年秋季，第 15-19、59、60 页。 这篇演讲/文章本质上是奥利弗对大学和大学生所发生的事情的剪辑。录像谈话中的最后几句话——或者在 美国水星 文章的最后一段——是为 NYA 做的宣传。奥利弗最初可能将这些材料整理成一篇论文或一篇文章，然后将这些材料附加到电影的 NYA 上，然后在出版时留下 NYA 参考资料 美国水星。无论如何，这部电影给人一种读杂志文章的独特感觉。语言和句法是书面的，而不是口头的，这给这部电影带来了一种生硬的感觉。

这部电影的导演，无论是谁，都试图注入一些制作价值。例如，奥利弗从办公桌上站起来，走到书柜前摆了一个姿势，然后继续演讲。此外，影片中的剪辑让观众离奥利弗越来越近，并改变了他们的视角。然而，总的来说，这部电影相当单调。不过话又说回来，奥利弗确实有一种庄严和权威的气质——他的演讲中不乏对经典、奥利弗的学术专长的令人印象深刻的提及——我想这给卢·拜尔斯的运作带来了一定程度的可信度。然而，在观看这部电影时，我确实想知道奥利弗对他所赞扬的组织的实际运作了解多少。

在奥利弗的演讲中，他的反犹太主义得到了体现。他没有明确提到犹太人，但当他谈到“外星粘液”和“粗糙的外星人”时，我们明白了这一信息。[214]同上，第。 16。
（雷维洛·P·奥利弗，《五十年后》， 美国水星， 不。 494，1969 年秋季，第 15-19、59、60 页。） 我们还得到这样的信息：全国青年联盟并不寻求吸引我们这些年来所谓的多元文化成员。奥利弗告诉我们，NYA 想要吸引的大学生是那些“继承了我们种族特有的品质的年轻男女，这些品质在贝奥武夫、亚瑟王、罗兰、帕西法尔和齐格弗里德的伟大传奇中都有体现。”[215]同上，第。 19。
（雷维洛·P·奥利弗，《五十年后》， 美国水星， 不。 494，1969 年秋季，第 15-19、59、60 页。）

在许多必修课中，他们（NYA力图吸引的学生）必须再次听到并背诵有关“民主”、“社会公益”、“不发达国家”的沉闷胡言乱语，就像他们从幼儿园以来每年都必须做的那样。 ”、“一个世界”以及所有其他自由派虚构的神话，他们认为目的是激发他们的负罪感，因为他们属于唯一能够获得超越自然力量的力量的种族——他们感到内疚，因为他们的祖先的智慧和勇气使他们超越了普遍“平等”的肮脏。他们必须重复教授的喋喋不休，但他们感到的不是内疚，而是愤怒。他们厌倦了平等。[216]同上，第。 18。
（雷维洛·P·奥利弗，《五十年后》， 美国水星， 不。 494，1969 年秋季，第 15-19、59、60 页。）

奥利弗说，他希望全国青年联盟能够

告诉美国年轻精英们他们长期以来一直等待听到的事情：不是通过帮助某些公司销售更多可口可乐、发油或脱漆剂而获得的“自由企业”的经济优势，也不是可以自由地在郊区购买抵押贷款，或者在激烈的竞争中跑得更快，并抚养孩子，让他们知道天堂是一个吃饱了的类人猿永远生活的地方，而是关于荣誉、忠诚、种族和西方的地方。人的征服或死亡的意志。青年男女不应该被召集去参加妇女传教士协会的会议，而应该被召集去参加与巨大困难的斗争。他们需要被警告的不是淑女般的保守派必须小心地爱每个人，而是只有当西方的男人仍然愿意死在龙塞斯瓦莱斯的山口时，粘糊糊的加内隆的叛国才能被击败。[217]同上，p。 59-60。
（雷维洛·P·奥利弗，《五十年后》， 美国水星， 不。 494，1969 年秋季，第 15-19、59、60 页。）

最后引用中提到的“粘糊糊的加内隆”是对中世纪史诗的引用， 罗兰之歌故事中，加内隆背叛了他的继子罗兰，在查理曼大帝的军队从西班牙与撒拉森人作战返回家乡时安排伏击。军队后卫指挥官罗兰在袭击中幸存下来，但随后因精疲力尽而死。因此，“粘糊糊的加内隆”指的是我们中间的密谋者和叛徒——也就是说，犹太人。

1994 年 XNUMX 月奥利弗去世四个月后，在伊利诺伊州厄巴纳市的 Jumer's Lodge 为他举行了一场纪念研讨会，这里是伊利诺伊大学的所在地，奥利弗曾在那里担任教授 XNUMX 年。此次活动的组织者和主持人是萨姆·迪克森（Sam Dickson），正是他为奥利弗文集撰写了序言， 美国的衰落。当时向奥利弗致敬的发言者包括凯文·斯特罗姆和他的妻子克尔斯滕。自从阿灵顿时代以来，凯文·斯特罗姆一直是皮尔斯生活中非常重要的一部分，斯特罗姆第一次与皮尔斯接触是在他参加联盟周日晚上的一次会议时。可以说，斯特罗姆是皮尔斯的第一得力助手。

高中毕业后，斯特罗姆曾担任广播工程师，用皮尔斯的话说，“脱离了大撒旦”，皮尔斯的意思是物质主义和信用卡债务的生活。斯特罗姆搬到了西弗吉尼亚州，帮助皮尔斯在西弗吉尼亚州的房产上安装了电话和警报系统。最重要的是，斯特罗姆在 1991 年提出推出每周半小时的短波广播节目来传播民族联盟的信息。他把这个程序称为 美国持不同政见者之声，并在田纳西州纳什维尔的 WWCR 上播出。该计划很快扩展到全国各地的 AM 电台，并且仍然是传播国家联盟理念的主要工具。

美国持不同政见者之声 是斯特罗姆的手术。他与电台谈判，在他在联盟总部大楼二楼设立的工作室中制作了节目的磁带，并将磁带邮寄到广播电台以便稍后播放。他还主持了大部分节目——皮尔斯大约每月主持一个节目。每场节目都是斯特罗姆或皮尔斯的演讲，前面是标准的预先录制的介绍，后面是有关国家联盟的信息。斯特罗姆的一些节目是对皮尔斯的采访。两人都不相信自发性——每场节目，包括采访，都是逐字逐句照本宣科的。斯特罗姆在一份名为“联盟时事通讯”的每月通讯中发布了广播脚本 自由言论，并通过国家先锋图书目录出售了节目的录音带以及皮尔斯在阿灵顿周日晚上的一些演讲的磁带。

Strom 还整理了 1970 年至 1981 年的文章 攻击！ 和 国民先锋队 小报整理成一本大型平装本，称为 最强攻击！和《国家先锋小报》 并通过国家先锋图书出版和发行。在书的介绍中。斯特罗姆将这些文章描述为“觉醒的编年史”。他写道，他们标记

白人男女意识到他们过去的伟大，他们种族退化的现实，以及他们对未来的责任。它是一场运动开始的编年史，这场运动的成功或失败将决定这个星球上未来的生命进程。[218]Kevin Alfred Strom，选择者和编曲者， 最强攻击！和《国家先锋小报》 （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1992 年）。

皮尔斯将斯特罗姆描述为素食主义者和禁酒者（不饮酒）。皮尔斯说，凯文和克尔斯滕相遇的方式是，一位名叫克尔斯滕·凯撒的年轻女子给国家联盟总部寄了一些信，她听起来很有趣，他向斯特罗姆暗示，这个克尔斯滕是他斯特罗姆可能喜欢的人。见面。斯特罗姆接受了皮尔斯的建议，两人的婚姻发展顺利，他和克尔斯滕结婚了，她搬到了西弗吉尼亚州。

我观看了斯特罗姆制作的奥利弗追悼会录像带。[219]奥利弗纪念研讨会，录像带 624（西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：National Vanguard Books，1995 年）。 斯特罗姆是第三位发言者，此前查尔斯·韦伯博士是第二次世界大战复审委员会的主席，理查德·斯瓦茨博博士是一位人类学家，着有《 调解员。萨姆·迪克森介绍了斯特罗姆。那天站在麦克风前的凯文·斯特罗姆是一位年轻、干净的男人，看起来三十多岁。他中等身材，穿着保守，穿着外套，打着领带。他的五官端正，戴着飞行员眼镜，这让他看起来像约翰·丹佛。然而，与丹佛不同的是，斯特罗姆的头发是深色的，剪成中等长度。头发整齐地分开，梳到一边，发尾垂向右眉。他让我想起了在航空公司售票站柜台后面看到的那些衣冠楚楚的工作人员。 11 月的那一天，他以一种温和而正式的方式向聚集在伊利诺伊州的听众发表讲话：

10 年 1994 月 1994 日，我一生中第一次突然发现自己生活在一个不包含雷维洛·彭德尔顿·奥利弗 (Revilo Pendleton Oliver) 的宇宙中……我和妻子于 XNUMX 年 XNUMX 月拜访了奥利弗博士和夫人，大约一个月前他的过世。当时，我的妻子怀上了我们的第二个孩子，埃德加·阿尔弗雷德·斯特罗姆。我的长子奥斯卡·奥利弗·斯特罗姆 (Oskar Oliver Strom) 的名字是为了纪念雷维洛·奥利弗 (Revilo Oliver)。我希望我们不断壮大的家庭和我们家庭对雷维洛·奥利弗为之做出如此巨大牺牲的事业的奉献给他带来了一些小小的满足……如果我们种族的未来像我相信的那样，存在于星星而不是灭绝的虚无中，那么，雷维洛·奥利弗的意识是一种未来意识，是欧洲人所具有的智力和精神伟大能力的一个例子。奥利弗博士回避感伤的幻想，并且常常对我们种族的未来感到悲观。但对我来说，他在这个星球上的存在证明了我们未来的道路是向上理解和掌握宇宙，而不是向下穿过杂种肮脏的原始粘液……博士。奥利弗并不害怕，我们欧洲血统也不应该害怕使用雅利安这个词……然而，它不应该不加区别地应用于每个白人。在我看来，它的使用应该仅限于描述我们种族中那些真正值得被称为贵族的人——那些通过他们的外表、他们的行为、他们的性格、他们的智力以及他们的使命意识来创造更高类型的人这个星球上的人类，理应成为我们人类后代的祖先。按照这样的标准，雷维洛·奥利弗是雅利安人中的雅利安人。 [在他去世之前]我能够告诉他我有多么爱他，他对我的生活有多大的影响，他对我和成千上万像我一样的人有多大的启发，以及只要我一息呼吸，他的事业是如何实现的他的生活还会继续。

经过几位发言后，轮到克尔斯滕·斯特罗姆 (Kirsten Strom) 向雷维洛·奥利弗 (Revilo Oliver) 致敬。她是当天唯一发言的女性。对于大多数男性演讲者来说，麦克风都处于胸部高处，有些人必须弯下腰才能对着麦克风说话。另一方面，在讲台上几乎看不到克尔斯滕，麦克风就在她面前。她大概三十岁出头，但看上去也有二十多岁的样子。她戴着大号透明塑料框眼镜，涂着深色口红。她戴着一顶 40 年代女性戴的那种深色圆帽——那种经常戴面纱的帽子，尽管她的帽子没有——而且帽子朝后脑勺倾斜。她的头发乌黑卷曲，勾勒出她圆圆的脸庞和柔和的五官。她穿着一件深色女式西装，里面穿着一件领子敞开的白色衬衫。她脖子上系着一条宽松的围巾。我记得我很小的时候，我妈妈就是这样穿的。

克尔斯滕·斯特罗姆 (Kirsten Strom) 说话的方式充满少女气息，朴素（她提到和奥利弗一起拍了一张“picher”），温柔而真诚。 “我叫克尔斯滕，”她开始说道。

我和丈夫凯文在约会时常做的一件事——我知道约会时做的事情有点奇怪——就是听奥利弗博士的演讲。当我第一次听到他说话时，我就知道他很了不起……[当我亲自认识他时]他对我非常仁慈。他总是称我为凯文的新娘——即使我们已经结婚几年了。我认为他非常有礼貌……奥利弗医生对凯文和我很好。我们非常喜欢和他聊天。他所说的一切都深深地烙印在我的记忆中，我确信任何与他交谈过的人都会如此。你永远不会忘记他，永远不会……我最后一次见到他是在七月——我们想在他生日时见到他。得知他病得很重，我们都很难过。正如凯文在演讲中所说，我们很幸运能够告诉他我们有多么爱他以及他如何永远改变了我们的生活......我大约两周前刚刚生了一个孩子，我真的很担心我不会'今天不能来。经过深思熟虑，我决定来，我很高兴我这么做了，因为这是我永远不会忘记的事情。我很高兴我们都聚集在一起。我希望我们永远记住奥利弗博士，并且我们将有同样的勇气日复一日地继续前进，说出我们所知道的真理。在家里，我的冰箱上贴着这样一句话：“真理不仅因谎言而愤怒，而且因沉默而愤怒。”我不会保持沉默，当然我的丈夫也不会保持沉默。凯文每周都会出现在[广播]中。你每周都可以听到他的声音。我要说的就是这些。我非常荣幸来到这里。谢谢。再见。

事实证明，凯文不再每周都在广播中，而且凯文和克尔斯滕也不再在一起了。他们的婚姻失败并离婚了。离婚带来的创伤让凯文分心，他想回到家乡明尼苏达州陪伴三个孩子，因此凯文停止了与皮尔斯的工作。凯文已获得三个孩子的监护权，据皮尔斯说，他的生活中心就是在家教育他们。皮尔斯告诉我，这对凯文来说尤其困难，因为他的一个孩子患有轻度自闭症。斯特罗姆不再主持广播节目，现在皮尔斯负责所有节目。自 1997 年以来，凯文·斯特罗姆 (Kevin Strom) 一直保持沉默。

关于皮尔斯写作的灵感来源有很多猜测 特纳日记。他以前从未写过任何小说。有些人猜测其灵感来自于杰克·伦敦的一本书，名为 铁脚跟.[220]杰克伦敦 铁脚跟 （纽约：Hill 和 Wang，1957）。 皮尔斯在我们的讨论中澄清了这一点。他说雷维洛·奥利弗是他的灵感来源。皮尔斯回忆起 1970 年或 1971 年通过与卢·拜尔斯的接触认识了奥利弗，并在那之后与奥利弗进行了通信。奥利弗（Oliver）为威廉·盖利·辛普森（William Gayley Simpson）所著的书写了评论 西方人走哪条路？ 皮尔斯的小报 攻击！。 （辛普森的书和皮尔斯对此的回应将在后面的章节中讨论。）皮尔斯大幅削减了奥利弗的评论。皮尔斯认为这篇文章太长了，而奥利弗（皮尔斯称奥利弗厌恶基督教）在他的评论中用了过多的篇幅来猛烈抨击基督教。那时——今天仍然如此，尽管程度较小——皮尔斯不想“与基督徒开战”，正如他对我所说的那样。奥利弗对皮尔斯在评论中的删减不太满意，但他们的关系非常融洽，1974 年奥利弗在华盛顿时，两人曾一起共进午餐。

皮尔斯在午餐会上告诉奥利弗，他发现很难让人们对他试图传达的信息做出回应。奥利弗问他是否曾想过写小说。奥利弗告诉皮尔斯，许多会回应他的想法的人——那些处于社会底层或边缘的人，在现有安排中利益较小，损失也较小——只是不读那种非小说类书籍。他正在生成的材料。奥利弗说，如果他们读过任何东西，那就是小说，尤其是轻松、充满动作的休闲小说。

“不，我没有想过写小说，”皮尔斯告诉奥利弗。 “不过，这听起来确实是个好主意。但我真的不知道从哪里开始做这样的事情——我从来没有做过。”奥利弗告诉皮尔斯，当他回到伊利诺伊州的家时，他会给他寄一本约翰·伯奇协会出版的书。这正是他想让皮尔斯考虑写作的小说类型。

几周后，皮尔斯收到了奥利弗在邮件中谈到的那本书的复印件。它被称为 约翰富兰克林书信，并于 1959 年出版。[221], 约翰富兰克林书信 （纽约：Bookmailer, Inc.，1959）。 皮尔斯告诉我，他并没有仔细阅读这本书，但他通读了足够多的内容，了解了如何做这样的事情。 “类似的事情”原来是 特纳日记，这本书在没有商业出版商和书店发行的帮助下已售出超过三十万册，可以说已成为我们这个时代最臭名昭著的书。

皮尔斯还保留着奥利弗给他的那本书的复印件，我翻阅了它。 约翰·富兰克林书信 该书由约翰·塞梅斯·富兰克林 (John Semmes Franklin) 写给他 1972 岁叔叔的虚构信件按时间顺序排列而成。它们跨越了两年，从 1974 年到 1959 年。（回想一下，这本书是 XNUMX 年写的，因此它的事件发生在未来。）皮尔斯告诉我，这些字母的格式是 约翰·富兰克林书信 激发了虚构日记的想法，皮尔斯认为这将是写第一部小说的好格式。通过日记，他只需通过一个人——特纳伯爵的眼睛来观察世界。他不必将自己置于许多角色的位置或承担一个无所不知的观察者的位置。

没有列出作者 约翰·富兰克林书信。序言由虚构的哈利·奥格登撰写，他自称是伊利诺伊大学美国历史教授。他告诉我们，富兰克林在给他叔叔的信中记录了富兰克林帮助组建的一支地下爱国军事力量游骑兵队驱逐“Buros”（官僚）的情况。奥格登写道，游骑兵队代表了对国家对美国生活各个方面过度控制的抵制。他们正在与正在摧毁这个国家的政府家长作风作斗争。当我阅读这本书时，我确信我知道这本书的作者是谁 约翰·富兰克林书信 是——雷维洛·奥利弗本人。那时我已经读了足够多的奥利弗的著作，认识到他的思想和写作风格。

“奥利弗有没有告诉过你是谁写的？ 约翰富兰克林书信 ？”我问皮尔斯。

“我不知道是谁写的，”皮尔斯回答道。 “它没有给出作者，因为前提是这是一本信件集。”

“我相信奥利弗本人写了这本书，而且无论出于何种原因，他不想让自己的身份为人所知，”我说。 “当时，在 1950 世纪 XNUMX 年代，他可能对人们的想法并不感到兴奋。 国家评论 或者伊利诺伊大学知道他正在写这种东西。”

“有可能，”皮尔斯回答道。 “我只知道他没有告诉我这本书是他写的。他只是说你见过吗 约翰富兰克林书信？我说，不，我从来没有，他说我会给你发一份副本，它可能会让你了解如何使用虚构的媒介来传达你的信息。他还把书寄给了我。”

即使 约翰富兰克林书信 它写于五十年前，反映了当代极右翼人士的许多担忧。一方面，人们对“老大哥”、自由主义家长式政府感到担忧，尤其是在联邦层面。在这本未分页的书的一封早期信件中，富兰克林告诉他的叔叔，这一切都始于 1930 世纪 XNUMX 年代的罗斯福和新政：“伟大的演说家（罗斯福）所说的政府并不是指美国人民，他们与他们自己社区的勇气和常识。他指的是一群关心别人事务的专业专家，他们甚至在那时就来到了华盛顿……一群一心想通过税收没收国家资金的理论家。”后来，富兰克林变得更加具体，正如他告诉他的叔叔的那样：“[‘专家’]计划让我们进入经济农奴制；现在，他们将通过一系列赤字支出、刺激控制和人口转移来有组织地囚禁我们。”

然后是灾难性的福利制度：“这就是发生的事情，”富兰克林写道。 “任何人 可以担任救援角色。你所要做的就是让这个靠别人的钱生活的官僚相信你是有需要的。”在其他地方，他告诉他的叔叔，“对有需要的人的慈善事业已经变成了‘社会工程师’手中的一个庞大的‘项目’系统。不劳而获——这就是现在的战斗口号。”

正如富兰克林所写，反黑人偏见显而易见：“全国三分之一的犯罪是黑人犯下的，大部分发生在北方城市——你会注意到，这里是启蒙和融合的发源地。自由党人气得面红耳赤，大声喊道：“那你还指望什么？”他们的生活条件不符合标准。我还要补充一点，那些强奸犯、杀人犯和小偷的行为都是不合格的。”在另一封信中，富兰克林将黑人称为“税收支持的无产阶级”。

人们对所谓的“仇恨法”感到担忧。 “尽管黑人很坏，你也不能批评他们，”富兰克林写道，“因为贾维茨仇恨文学法，[雅各布·贾维茨当时是纽约的犹太参议员]，它阻止了被认为不公平的宣传反对少数群体。”后来，富兰克林写信给他的叔叔，谈论一位“富兰克林先生”。 “白人”（白人？）因对黑人无礼而被判处十年“行政处罚”。富兰克林解释说：“这被视为一种种族灭绝形式，因为它可能对整个少数民族造成心理伤害。”富兰克林向他的叔叔报告说，纽约群体间关系委员会此前一直在追捕这位怀特先生，因为他是一家乡村俱乐部的主席，但未能将黑人纳入其成员之中。富兰克林写道：“怀特向委员会表示，他认为他和他的朋友有权选择自己的同事，在这种情况下是最不明智的。”

这本书还预言了人们对这些年来所谓的“新世界秩序”的恐惧。富兰克林在信中断言，美国的主权正在交给他所说的“世界政府”，例如联合国。富兰克林认为，这是走向“全世界人民民主政府”运动的一部分。他告诉叔叔，美国现在由联合国组织和“北美人民民主反法西斯政府”管辖。

还有枪支管制的担忧。富兰克林写道：“任何一个自由人国家都没有被强加过独裁统治，他们首先被要求登记他们的私人武器……[但是，]我们没有，就像匈牙利人一样[指的是1956年反对苏联的起义”。 -那个国家的统治政府]沦为徒手和燃烧瓶[用汽水瓶和汽油制成的爆炸装置]进行战斗。数以百万计的美国人仍然拥有一种致命且值得信赖的武器，但布罗斯试图夺取却为时已晚。”

最终，流浪者队赢得了胜利。富兰克林的最后一封信日期为 4 年 1974 月 1950 日（这本书再次写于 XNUMX 世纪 XNUMX 年代），讲述了胜利和“美利坚合众国合法政府”的重建。富兰克林告诉他的叔叔：“黎明前，游骑兵出现在华盛顿。不到一个小时，我们就控制了整个城市的警察总部、广播电台和布罗哨所。日出后不久，两个营的游骑兵伞兵从你所知道的旧军用和商用飞机上跳下。 RockCreekPark 设立了指挥所。我们与城市周围的联合国和布罗警卫几乎没有遇到任何麻烦。正如我们在游戏早期发现的那样，他们更多地是看守人和看门人，而不是战斗步兵。困扰我们一段时间的专业军事力量——苏联、中国和印度军队——已经撤出几个月，以应对国内的骚乱。”

这本书的结尾充满了不祥的意味，富兰克林提到了报复：“某些高尚的自由主义者将是最先被处决的人之一，他们将在不明白为什么的情况下死去。”

以以下示例为指导 约翰富兰克林书信，皮尔斯开始写作后来被称为 特纳日记 作为他的小报的分期付款 攻击！。早期的文章得到了读者的热烈反响，所以他继续写下去。与 约翰·富兰克林 信件，基本情况是未来对美国控制者的反抗。在皮尔斯的书中，它不是流浪者队，而是组织。组织内部有一个精英组织，主角厄尔·特纳所属，名为“教团”。在纳粹德国，国家社会党最优秀的年轻党员组成的干部被称为“勋章”。当我读皮尔斯的书时，我猜想这就是他名字的由来，但他告诉我事实并非如此。厄尔·特纳和他的同胞们并没有像奥利弗书中那样与布罗斯人作战，而是与星系对抗。当然，厄尔·特纳不写信，而是写日记。

皮尔斯告诉我他写了二十六章 特纳日记 ——他的小报每一期都有一个 攻击！——历时三年半。他说，他确保做的一件事就是在每一集中加入一段暴力或强化动作，以保持读者的兴趣。他说，由于截止日期很短，他很快就把这些剧集删掉了，而且他不知道它们会组成一本书。他告诉我，如果他知道他们最终会受到尽可能多的关注，他会努力把写作做得更好。皮尔斯多次向我表示他不认为 特纳日记 写得很好。他似乎对这本书的文学价值感到有些尴尬。他想 Hunter，他在 1980 世纪 XNUMX 年代中期写的小说，但受到的关注远不如《 特纳日记，是一本写得更好的书。

当皮尔斯完成时 特纳日记 1978 年，他认为自己有一些值得单独出版的东西。他告诉我，他将手稿寄给了十一到十二家出版商，但他们都拒绝了。然后他亲自出版了手稿。[222]安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯 饰） 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。 它在皮尔斯所谓的地下市场上出售：通过生存主义杂志上的广告、枪支展上的广告、个人向朋友出售这本书以及通过他自己的《国家先锋队》图书目录。这本书非常成功，销量超过三十万册，读者人数可能达到五十万。

在俄克拉荷马州爆炸事件引起这本书的广泛关注后，地下销售模式在短时间内出现了变化。商业出版商 Barricade Press 挑选了它。皮尔斯说，鲍勃·德马莱斯 (Bob DeMarais) 制作了一个促销包，并将其发送给 29 家出版商，而 Barricade 已“购买”。路障是莱尔·斯图尔特（Lyle Stuart）经营的，讽刺的是，他是犹太人。皮尔斯告诉我，街垒因争议而蓬勃发展，而且 特纳日记 是它出版的那种书。在街垒版的序言中 特纳日记斯图尔特写道，他个人认为这本书应受谴责，但他认为，作为言论自由的问题，它值得向公众公开。路障拿起后不久 特纳日记，它破产了，这本书的权利又回到了皮尔斯。 Barricade 的另一本书声称，拉斯维加斯的人物 Steve Wynn 是有组织犯罪的幌子。永利起诉出版社诽谤，并被判赔偿三百万美元。那打破了路障。所以皮尔斯又回来卖他自己的书了。

皮尔斯到底写了什么 特纳日记？蒂莫西·麦克维和成千上万受这本书影响的人在书中读到了什么？接下来就是了。

皮尔斯写道 特纳日记以及他后来的小说 Hunter，笔名安德鲁·麦克唐纳。[223]安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯 饰） 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。 他的方法与雷维洛·奥利弗（我确信就是奥利弗）在 约翰·富兰克林书信。序言 约翰富兰克林书信 是由虚构的哈雷·奥格登教授撰写的，皮尔斯的前锋是由麦克唐纳撰写的。皮尔斯与奥利弗的不同之处在于，他让麦克唐纳成为这本书的作者，而奥利弗在没有确定作者的情况下留下了他的书。

的前提 特纳日记 麦克唐纳是在新时代第100年，也就是我们计算的2099年，为这本书写序言的。麦克唐纳告诉我们，这个国家有一个名为“组织”的起义组织（在奥利弗的书中是“流浪者”），它成功地发动了反对体制的大革命（在《奥利弗》中是“布罗斯”）。 富兰克林书信）在 1991 年至 1999 年期间。回想一下，皮尔斯撰写的小报剧集后来成为 特纳日记 在 1970 世纪 2015 年代中期，所以这就像在 2020 年或 1 年写的书中设定事件；它给写作带来了预言的品质。我们在序言中了解到，这场伟大革命的结果是一场“灾难性的剧变”，不仅在美国，而且在全世界，最终导致了新时代。这是一个具有里程碑意义的事件转折，从那时起开始编号（2NE、3NE、XNUMXNE，等等）。

麦克唐纳写道，所发生的事情是，“华盛顿废墟”的挖掘工作刚刚发现了（这是 100NE，记住）大革命烈士之一保存的一本具有历史意义的日记——我觉得很有趣皮尔斯使用的是“烈士”这个词，而不是英雄——一个名叫厄尔·特纳的人。这是一个重大发现，因为特纳是一位重要的历史人物。学校里的孩子们将他的名字和其他人一起记在《烈士名录》上，每年的烈士日都会对他进行表彰。这本书标志着特纳日记首次向公众公开。

我们得知，厄尔·特纳是该组织的普通成员，也是该组织的精英骨干组织。麦克唐纳告诉我们，特纳从 1991 年 9 月革命开始到他去世的那一天（1993 年 XNUMX 月 XNUMX 日）一直记日记，当时他驾驶一架旧的农作物喷粉飞机执行了一次相当于自杀式的任务，向美国投掷核弹。华盛顿特区的五角大楼。炸弹击中了目标，特纳作为伟大烈士之一实现了某种不朽。他将因他巨大的奉献精神、勇气和牺牲，以及他和其他像他一样的人所创造的一种宏伟的新生活方式而受到后人的尊敬。

麦克唐纳告诉我们，特纳开始写日记时已经三十五岁了。特纳在洛杉矶长大，接受了电气工程师培训，大学毕业后定居在华盛顿特区（自与罗克韦尔有联系以来皮尔斯的生活中心），在那里他在一家电子研究公司工作。特纳的日记记述了他在大革命中的功绩，以及他在组织中的同胞乔治、亨利，以及成为特纳的伴侣（皮尔斯使用的词）凯瑟琳的女人。麦克唐纳没有在序言中向读者透露任何关于这些人的长相的信息，我们也没有在书中得到任何提示，除了他了解到凯瑟琳是一位外表迷人的女性。

Earl Turner 的第一篇日记写于 16 年 1991 月 XNUMX 日。经过这么多年的讨论——除了讨论什么也没有——我们终于采取了我们的第一个行动。我们正在与系统交战，这不再是一场口水战。”[224]同上，第。 1。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 特纳提到两年前在枪支袭击中被捕。科恩法案（在 约翰·富兰克林 信件 这是贾维茨法案（另一个犹太名字）宣布私人拥有枪支为非法。四名黑人拿着棒球棒和刀冲进特纳的门，洗劫了他的公寓寻找枪支。他们的白人上司发现了这一点（在皮尔斯的著作中，不要指望少数族裔能完成任何事情），特纳被捕了。[225]同上，第。 3。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 在枪支袭击中被捕的人数如此之多——全国有八十万人——以至于当局没有办法处理所有这些人。因此，在高中体育馆被拘留三天后，特纳被释放。然而，当他被捕时，他失去了实验室的职位，并为几家电子公司做咨询工作和特殊工作以谋生。皮尔斯可能是根据自己的情况来进行分析的。他在普惠公司的工作结束了——尽管是他主动提出的，但在他看来，他在被推之前就跳了起来——因为他的违法行为、出版 国家社会主义世界.

特纳在日记中记录道，两年前发生枪支袭击时，该组织的一些激进成员赞成“挖出我们的武器藏匿处，立即对系统发动恐怖计划，处决联邦武装人员”。法官、报纸编辑、立法者和其他系统人物。他们认为，采取这种行动的时机已经成熟，因为在枪支袭击之后，他们可以通过这种反对暴政的运动赢得公众的同情。”[226]同上，第。 5。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 但特纳总结道，他们错了。本组织尚未准备好采取有效行动。特纳写道，当时的组织中有太多的胆小鬼、大嘴人、告密者、傻瓜、弱者、不负责任的混蛋、胆小鬼和业余爱好者。但现在他们已经准备好了。所谓的大革命已经开始。

特纳的单位（皮尔斯的全国联盟分为多个单位，约翰·伯奇协会也是皮尔斯的第一个组织链接）需要筹集一些现金，因此他们抢劫了伯曼的酒品店并抢走了八百美元。在此过程中，厄尔用“象牙特制”——袜子里的一块肥皂，打了一名黑人员工的头。 （这种“具有社会意识”的犯罪行为——抢劫一家酒类商店——可能启发了鲍勃·马修斯（Bob Mathews），他将在后面讨论，设计出自己类似的筹资企业。）然后他们沿着街道去了伯曼熟食店。厄尔给老人伯曼一杯波普酒。亨利随后将伯曼的喉咙从耳朵切到耳朵。当伯曼夫人进入现场时，亨利带着一罐犹太泡菜飞了起来，她“在一片泡菜和碎玻璃中”坠落。[227]同上，第。 11。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 那次抢劫又赚了 4,426 美元。厄尔报告说，他不想再抢劫任何酒类商店，因为“我没有勇气这么做。”[228]同上。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 请注意，厄尔的问题在于紧张。对于一位老人被割断喉咙，以及他的妻子被一个坚硬的罐子打在脸上，他没有任何道德上的疑虑。

In 特纳日记皮尔斯明确表达了奥利弗书中的默示：该组织正在代表白人进行斗争；这是一场种族战争。 “如果本组织现在未能完成其任务，”特纳写道，“一切 我们将失去——我们的[白人]历史、我们的遗产、无数数千年的所有鲜血和牺牲以及向上的奋斗。我们正在对抗的敌人完全打算摧毁我们存在的基础。”[229]同上，第。 34。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

特纳日记 从头到尾都充满了暴力，特别是当对犹太人、黑人和叛逆的白人——男人和女人、年轻人和老年人进行报复时。早期的一篇报道讲述了一名组织成员在芝加哥监狱中死亡的故事，特纳推测，很可能死于黑人囚犯之手，而白人当局则对此视而不见。作为报复，该组织的一名成员用霰弹枪打掉了库克县警长的头。[230]同上，第。 16。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 当芝加哥​​犹太社区的发言人回应称该组织是“一群种族主义偏执者”时，他的头被斧头砍了下来。[231]同上，第。 17。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 我的猜测是，除了此类暴力事件为本书的叙事线索提供的服务之外，写下这些事件还给皮尔斯带来了一定程度的宣泄。

随着这种事情在芝加哥和其他地方发生，美国司法部长宣布联邦调查局将铲除该组织，他将其描述为“堕落的种族主义罪犯”，他们想要“毁掉实现真正正义的所有进展”。近年来该系统已经实现了“平等”。[232]同上，第。 18。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

厄尔报告说，他和凯瑟琳到目前为止一直与乔治结盟，尽管她不是乔治的伴侣，但他们意外地在淋浴时赤身裸体地相遇，一切顺其自然。[233]同上，第。 28。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 从那时起，他们就在一起了。特纳描述凯瑟琳自己在枪支袭击中被捕。在她的室友被黑人强奸后，她买了一把手枪。她在拘留中心遇到了乔治，他使她变得激进。在遇到乔治之前，凯瑟琳一直是一名自由主义者，“就像大多数人一样，没有头脑、自动自发”。[234]同上，第。 29。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 乔治给她读书并帮助她建立种族认同。皮尔斯的写作中反复出现的主题是，通过提供书籍供他们阅读的人来教育他们的种族意识。毫无疑问，这源于他对这种教育的核心重要性的认识以及他对自己作为一名教师的看法。在某种程度上，皮尔斯教授从未离开过教室。

凯瑟琳过去曾担任国会议员的秘书、文案编辑和作家。在该组织中，她专门从事化妆和伪装。皮尔斯的另一个主题是：当女性在做她们应该做的事情时，它不会是写作或编辑文章；而是。女人为她们的男人服务。

现在我们来看看书中蒂莫西·麦克维案中备受关注的事件。许多人认为，这就是麦克维以他的方式炸毁俄克拉荷马城默拉联邦大楼的原因。特纳的部队被指派炸毁位于华盛顿的联邦调查局总部。目标是在联邦调查局逮捕更多组织成员之前发动袭击。特别是，革命者希望摧毁大楼地下室的一个计算机综合体，该计算机综合体支持新的内部护照系统，该系统将暴露并逮捕组织的“合法人员”，即那些没有转入地下的人。[235]同上，第。 30。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 轰炸的次要目标是通过展示其行动能力和使系统难堪来提高本组织的士气。[236]同上，第。 36。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

该组织的另一个单位已被指派去获取炸药。特纳的部队将劫持一辆向联邦调查局总部运送货物的卡车，在卡车上装载炸药，开车到货运接收区，设置保险丝，并在炸弹爆炸之前离开卡车。特纳的部门将制定任务的细节，其中包括确定联邦调查局的货运时间表和程序。特纳的具体工作是设计和建造引爆炸弹的机制。在这里，我们在皮尔斯的写作中看到了另一个主题和理想：人们毫无疑问地做他们被告知的事情，以服务于一项伟大的种族增强使命。

特纳写道，他首先组装了一个触发机制，他说该机制“非常容易”构建，尽管他没有详细说明他是如何实现的。他说他一直在使用助推器——触发装置需要一个助推器来引爆主装药，即五吨或十吨炸药，如 TNT——直到他知道自己将使用哪种炸药。负责获取炸药的部队偷走了两箱约一百磅的爆破明胶，这是他需要的助推器。爆破明胶足够敏感，可以由他自制的叠氮化铅雷管引爆，他拥有的一百磅足以引爆主装药，结果是沿途大约有四千四百磅的硝酸铵化肥。带着四百磅炸药特纳写道：

我将大约四磅的爆破明胶装入一个空的苹果酱罐中，给它涂上底漆，将电池和计时装置放在罐的顶部，并将它们连接到 20 英尺延长线末端的一个小拨动开关上。当我们向卡车装载炸药时，罐子会进入后面，位于两箱爆破明胶的顶部。我们必须在拖车和驾驶室的墙壁上戳一些小孔，以便将延长线和开关插入驾驶室。[237]同上，p。 32-33。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

有人（可能是亨利）将卡车开进联邦调查局大楼内的货运区域，按下开关启动计时器，十分钟后炸药就会爆炸。由于炸药量比较少，所以决定最好还是尽量把卡车开进地下室一层，那里有货运入口。

如果我们在庭院下方的地下室引爆炸弹，那么限制将使其更加有效。几乎可以肯定，它会将地下室地板塌陷到地下室，将计算机掩埋起来。此外，它将摧毁建筑物的大部分（如果不是全部）通信和电力设备，因为这些设备位于地下室。最大的未知数是它是否会对建筑物造成足够的结构损坏，使其无法长期居住。如果没有详细的建筑蓝图以及建筑师和土木工程师团队，我们根本无法回答这个问题。[238]同上。 页。 37。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

“如果我们幸运的话，”特纳在日记中写道，“这将是联邦调查局大楼以及政府用于内部护照系统的价值 30 亿美元的新计算机综合体的终结。”[239]同上，第。 33。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 请注意，没有考虑爆炸中可能丧生的人员。

特纳和参与此次行动的另一个部门的法令专家埃德·桑德斯计算出，他们至少需要一万磅 TNT 或同等炸药才能摧毁联邦调查局大楼的大部分并破坏新的计算机中心。为了保险起见，他们要价两万英镑。然而，特纳最终不得不用不到五千磅来凑合，其中大部分不是 TNT，而是硝酸铵肥料。他说，当用油敏化并严格限制时，硝酸铵会成为一种有效的爆破剂，尽管他认为它的效果不如 TNT。[240]同上，第。 35。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

爆炸发生当天，特纳和桑德斯在另一个单位的车库里将取暖油与一百磅一袋的硝酸铵肥料混合。

我们将 100 磅重的袋子一个一个地竖起来，用螺丝刀在顶部戳一个小孔，大小刚好足以插入漏斗的末端。当我拿着袋子和漏斗时，艾德倒了一加仑油。然后我们在洞上贴了一大块胶带，我把袋子翻过来混合里面的东西，而艾德则将他的油罐从进料管重新装满到油炉。我们花了近三个小时才完成全部 44 次擒杀，这项工作真的让我筋疲力尽。[241]同上，第。 38。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

与此同时，乔治和亨利出去偷一辆卡车。他们找到了一辆办公用品公司的送货卡车，亨利用刀杀死了黑人司机。亨利开着卡车回到特纳和桑德斯所在的地方，乔治开着车跟在后面。他们卸下了运货卡车上的货物，然后将一箱箱炸药和一袋袋通过添加取暖油敏化的硝酸铵化肥装到空车上。特纳将雷管的电缆和开关从货物区域穿过裂缝引入卡车驾驶室。他们决定将司机的尸体留在卡车后部。

亨利驾驶卡车驶向联邦调查局大楼。[242]同上，第38-39页。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 上午9点15分，炸弹爆炸。特纳在日记中写道：

……我们脚下的人行道剧烈颤抖。紧接着，冲击波袭击了我们——一声震耳欲聋的“卡呼”声，紧接着是巨大的轰鸣声、撞击声，周围玻璃破碎的高音调噪音更是加剧了这种声音。我们旁边商店的平板玻璃窗以及我们沿街看到的其他数十扇玻璃窗都被炸成了碎片。一阵闪闪发光、致命的玻璃碎片雨持续从附近建筑物的上层落入街道，持续了几秒钟，一道漆黑的烟柱直冲我们前方的天空。[243]同上，第。 39。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

特纳和乔治跑向大楼：

院子里的景象一片狼藉。建筑物的整个宾夕法尼亚大道侧翼……已经倒塌，部分倒塌到建筑物中心的庭院，部分倒塌到宾夕法尼亚大道。院子里的人行道上，就在倒塌的砖石瓦砾之外，裂开了一个大洞，大部分黑烟就是从这个洞上升的。翻倒的卡车和汽车、被砸碎的办公家具、建筑瓦砾散落一地，遇难者的尸体数量惊人。一切都笼罩着一层黑烟，灼烧着我们的眼睛和肺部，让明亮的早晨变得半暗。[244]同上，第39-40页。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

特纳报告说，他“对这场灾难目瞪口呆，既恐惧又兴奋。”[245]同上。 页。 40。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

特纳听到一声呻吟，看到一个二十岁左右的女孩被困在废墟中，处于半昏迷状态，她的脸被弄脏和割伤，她的腿骨折了，大腿上有一道深深的伤口。他在她大腿的伤口上绑上止血带，然后把她抱到街上。然后他意识到其他数十名受害者的呻吟和尖叫声。他看着一个女人，她的脸沾满了血，头上有一个大伤口，一动不动地躺着——“这是一个可怕的景象，”他写道。

特纳后来得知，大约有七百人在爆炸中丧生。在书中，特纳第一次面对造成如此多无辜者死亡的合理性问题。

……我们不可能在不伤害成千上万无辜人民的情况下摧毁这个系统——不可能。这是一种深深扎根于我们肉体的癌症。如果我们不在这个系统摧毁我们之前摧毁它——如果我们不从我们活生生的肉体中切除这种癌症——我们整个种族就会灭亡……我们都完全相信我们所做的都是合理的，但看到我们自己的人民因为我们的行为而遭受如此严重的痛苦，仍然很难受。正是因为美国人多年来不愿意做出令人不快的决定，我们现在才被迫做出确实严厉的决定。[246]同上，第。 42。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

他提到的“令人不快的决定”是针对威胁美国白人生存的犹太人和种族问题。

联邦调查局爆炸案发生后不久，特纳被告知，他被认为有资格进入该组织的精选核心圈子，即凤凰社。特纳穿上了看起来像僧侣的长袍，并与五名同样穿着长袍的组织成员站成一圈，参加入会仪式。作为骑士团的成员，他们是圣道的承载者——他们种族的生存和进步。特纳和其他人宣誓效忠事业并相互效忠。特纳回忆道，这次经历“让我浑身颤抖，脖子后面的汗毛都竖起来了”。[247]同上，第。 73。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 现在他的生命只属于凤凰社。 “从某种意义上说，今天我重生了，”他写道。 “我现在知道，我将永远无法再像以前一样看待世界、周围的人或自己的生活。”[248]同上，第。 74。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

当我读到这本书的这一部分时，我想象皮尔斯一定会感到满意，我相信他一直感到很孤独，写下特纳——实际上，他就是皮尔斯；这本书是皮尔斯写下他自己的幻想、他自己的愿望——让他的生活与他人交织在一起，服务于比他们个人兴趣和追求更大的事情。皮尔斯一定会很满意地写到其他人像特纳一样致力于实现这一宏伟目标，并写到其他人给予特纳忠诚和支持，而特纳也给予他们忠诚和支持作为回报。

我认为成为一个类似秩序的团体的一部分是皮尔斯——或者更好的是，成为他的一部分——在他的生活中所希望的。他领导着一个组织——国家联盟，并监督其员工，但我认为他梦想成为一名有价值的追随者、一名普通成员，就像特纳在本书中所扮演的那样。我在本段第一句中说“他的一部分”，因为尽管皮尔斯想要融入比他更大的事物中，但归根结底，他是一个孤独的人，想要在自己的生活中做主。自从1970年皮尔斯与马特·科尔和新南威尔士州党决裂以来，尽管他一直在一个组织——全国青年联盟（后来成为全国联盟）的背景下工作，但实际上他是在单独工作。即使凯文·斯特罗姆和他在一起时也是如此。斯特罗姆在皮尔斯手下工作比在他身边工作更多，而且从来没有真正 以真正粘合的方式进行刺穿。根据我从皮尔斯那里得到的信息，他与斯特罗姆的关系更像是志同道合的同事，而不是像凤凰社里的融合兄弟。目前，皮尔斯有下属和追随者，人们在他周围做事——我想到的是全国联盟地方单位的活动——但他确实没有战友。我对皮尔斯的解读是，他来来回回：他想与他人纠缠在一起，但同时又不想，而这两种冲动中的后者胜出了。然而，另一种冲动——成为一名“好士兵”的愿望——仍然存在于皮尔斯身上，它在这一部分中得到了体现。 特纳日记.

本书的其余部分在特纳/皮尔斯关于世界状况的迷你讲座和本组织日益可怕的暴力行为之间来回切换。

简单来说一些讲座：

• 自由主义是一种幼稚的、伪复杂的、顺从的世界观，对白人来说是陌生的。这是一场“平等主义瘟疫”。[249]同上，第。 34。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）
• 保守主义是一种改良主义心态，它要么不会，要么不能正视当前社会安排的深层徒劳性，以及建立一些根本上不同的东西来取代它的必要性。[250]同上，p。 51-52。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）
• 妇女运动是该制度推动的一种畸变，目的是分裂白人男性和女性，从而引发种族对立。[251]同上，第。 45。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）
• 黑人对白人文化的影响日益恶化。为了以白人自然的健康方式生活，白人需要自己的生活空间，与黑人完全分开。[252]同上，第。 59。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）
• 大多数美国人淹没在媒体、学校和教堂的犹太自由主义宣传洪流中，甚至没有意识到这一点。他们变成了软弱的、物质至上的畜群，真正的民主主义者，没有种族认同和忠诚，也没有英雄般的坚韧和精神。[253]同上，第80，101页。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）
• 我们需要敢于想象走在街上，看到的只是“干净、快乐、热情、白脸、坚定、对未来充满希望”。我们需要想象一下，如果街道是这样的，那会是什么样子？ 我们的 一次。[254]同上，第。 160。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

以及一些暴力的例子：

• “华盛顿邮报” 办公室遭到轰炸，其中一名犹太社论作家被一把短霰弹枪的两次爆炸炸成两半。[255]同上，第。 48。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）
• 该组织的一名成员因拒绝暗杀一名提倡种族混合的牧师和拉比的任务而被处决。[256]同上，第 53 页。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）
• 迫击炮弹如雨点般落在华盛顿国会大厦上，造成六十一人死亡（“美丽的花朵”，“壮丽的景象”）。[257]同上，p。 60-61。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）
• 火箭筒击落了一架飞往特拉维夫的客机。[258]同上，第。 62。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）
• 三名年轻的黑人男性和两名白人女孩中的一名被撬棍杀死。另一个女孩在试图逃跑时被枪杀。[259]同上，第。 76。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）
• 以色列大使馆遭到迫击炮袭击，只剩下一堆被烧毁的残骸，里面的三百人除了少数人外全部遇难。[260]同上，第。 118。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）
• 休斯敦遭到轰炸，造成四千人死亡，休斯敦的大部分工业和航运设施变成了闷烧的废墟。随后的爆炸导致休斯顿机场关闭，摧毁了该市的主要发电站，并摧毁了两座战略位置的立交桥和一座桥梁。[261]同上，第。 94。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）
• 在“白人权力！”的呼喊声中，全国各地的黑人被随意枪杀。[262]同上，第。 146。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）
• 行刑队枪杀、刺伤和殴打犹太人，他们的尸体散落在人行道、小巷和公寓楼的走廊上。[263]同上，第。 169。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）
• 犹太人和所有看起来有非白人血统的人都被排成纵队，“不归路”地行进到峡谷。[264]同上，第。 162。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）
• 纽约市核爆炸直接导致 1400 万人死亡，预计另有 500 万人将死于烧伤或辐射。[265]同上，第188-189页。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）
• 书中讨论最广泛的一集：“绳索之日”。洛杉矶的白人“背叛了自己的种族”，迎来了他们的命运。特纳在日记中写道：

1 年 1993 月 30 日。今天是绳索日……夜晚充满了无声的恐怖；在这个广阔的大都市区，数以万计的灯柱、电线杆和树木上都悬挂着可怕的形状……今晚，在我前往总部的路上，几乎在每一个街角，都有一具悬空的尸体，每个路口都有四具尸体。距离这里仅一英里的一座立交桥上悬挂着一群大约 XNUMX 人的队伍，每个人的脖子上都挂着一张相同的标语牌，上面印有文字：“我背叛了我的种族。”……在一个没有灯光的街区中间，我看到似乎有一个人站在我正前方的人行道上。当我走近那个沉默的身影时，它的面容隐藏在人行道上方一棵大树的阴影里，它一动不动，挡住了我的去路……然后，当我距离那个身影只有十几英尺时，它一直背对着我。我，它开始慢慢转向我。 [我看到]一位年轻女子那张肿胀得可怕的紫色脸，她的眼睛睁得大大的，凸出，嘴巴张得大大的。最后，我能辨认出一根绳子的细垂直线消失在上面的树枝中。[266]同上，第160-161页。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

特纳的最后一篇日记日期为 9 年 1993 月 XNUMX 日。他写道：“距离黎明还有三个小时，所有系统都已‘启动’。”[267]同上，第。 202。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 这一天，特纳将驾驶他的旧农作物喷粉飞机起飞，并保持在离地面非常低的高度，用核弹摧毁五角大楼。他将在这个过程中失去生命，并永远获得种族的认可和感激。几个月前，凯瑟琳在一场与黑人的枪战中被杀，枪战的起因是其中一名黑人对她进行了性挑衅。特纳与凤凰社分离是因为他在被俘期间违反了誓言。在以色列军事情报人员的指导下，他受到酷刑，但没有服用在这种情况下使用的氰化物，之后他透露了有关该组织的信息。特纳逃脱了抓捕者的追捕，并受到秩序法庭的审判并被定罪。他被告知，如果他承担起他将要执行的使命，那么他在骑士团中的试用身份将会延长（他还没有完成使他成为正式成员的联合仪式），这是一个“其成功的使命”。合理地预期完成会导致你的死亡。”就在执行任务之前，他将被允许参加联盟仪式并成为骑士团的正式成员。[268]同上，第。 99。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

在他生命的最后一天的前两天，特纳举行了骑士团的联合仪式。在他的最后一篇日记中，他将参加仪式的其他人描述为“纯爷们儿, 白色 男人，现在的男人 一种 在精神、意识以及血液中与我同在。”[269]同上。 页。 203。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

他指出，飞机的发动机已经预热了大约十分钟，他收到了起飞的信号。[270]同上，第。 204。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 日记到此结束。

在尾声中，麦克唐纳告诉我们，特纳的任务成功了，但他却在这次任务中丧生。战争仍在继续，数千万人丧生。麦克唐纳指出，在这个过程中，“数以百万计的软弱、在城市长大、被洗脑的白人逐渐开始恢复男子气概。”[271]同上，第。 207。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 30年1999月XNUMX日，该组织取得彻底胜利，签署奥马哈休战协议。

然后是扫荡行动：“最后一批非白人乐队被追捕并消灭，随后对剩余白人中的不良种族分子进行了最后的清除。”[272]同上，第。 209。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。）

随后，冲突蔓延到世界各地，20 年 1999 月 XNUMX 日，“伟人”（希特勒）一百一十岁生日那天，白人政府控制了世界。[273]同上，第。 210。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， 特纳日记，第二版（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：1980 年）。） 希特勒的梦想实现了。

至于特纳伯爵，他是自己种族的英勇战士，只要他的人民还存在，他就会永远活在他们的心中。

“你知道你的讣告的第一行是什么，不是吗？”我对皮尔斯说。

“嗯，这取决于我什么时候死，是在革命之前还是之后，”他回答道。

“就说革命之前吧。”

“你说的是在 “纽约时报”设立的区域办事处外，我们在美国也开设了办事处，以便我们为当地客户提供更多的支持。“

“是的。肯定会这样说：“白人至上主义小说的作者威廉·皮尔斯， 特纳日记，今天死了。我想几乎每个人都会将你与那本书联系起来——尤其是与蒂莫西·麦克维的联系所带来的恶名。可能对很多人来说，你和这本书是同义词。”

“是的，我意识到，无论如何，在这一点上，我非常认同 特纳日记 在人们的心目中。”

“当你和雷维洛·奥利弗交谈时，他说你必须接触那些只做休闲阅读的人。那是你这本书的读者吗？”

“我确实认为这类书适合那些不太可能阅读我的其他材料的人。至少一开始，读这本书的人主要是那些除了冒险小说之外不怎么读书的人。但后来这本书开始受到宣传，其他人想看看到底有什么大惊小怪的，所以最终这本书被许多不同类型的人阅读。虽然我必须说，许多受这本书影响的下层白人并不是我想要招募的人，因为他们并不是特别有用的人。他们没有良好的品格，也不是真正坚强有能力的人。但我确实通过这本书接触到了一些非常优秀的人，我确信我不会接触到这些人。

“不过，我认为最重要的是，这本书对公众意识产生了巨大影响——它已经成为家喻户晓的词。我在书中读到过一个故事 乡村之声 [纽约市报纸] 大约六个月前。有一个叫特纳的人——我想是哈里·特纳——他是一名公路专员或类似的职位，某种政治工作。他卷入了某种丑闻或争议。无论如何，文章的标题中有“特纳日记”——我猜他们认为这会是一个可爱的标题。但实际上这本书与这个故事无关。只是这个人的名字叫特纳，标题作者认为每个人都会得到参考。我读到这篇文章后心里想：‘我们到了！’”

（另一个例子说明如何 特纳日记 皮尔斯似乎已经进入了主流文化：在 1999 年杰夫·布里奇斯的电影中， 阿灵顿路正如皮尔斯书中所言，华盛顿联邦调查局总部大楼被炸毁，一辆送货卡车被卷入其中。此外，布里奇斯角色的妻子在西弗吉尼亚州追捕一个名叫帕森斯的极右翼人物时被杀。）

“我认为你是对的，”我同意道，“特纳日记 对公众意识产生了影响。但我确实认为大多数人的联想都是非常负面的。至少我身边的人——我指的是中产阶级专业人士，他们认为自己知识渊博、开明、理性、有道德——对我说：“我没有时间读那些无知的、种族主义垃圾，我也没有时间理会任何制作此类材料的人。怎么会有人写出这样一本充满仇恨、暴力的书呢？他到底以为自己在做什么？你如何回应这样的人？你对他们说什么？

“特纳日记 和 Hunter [274]安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯 饰） Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。 我写的其他所有内容都不是营销专家设计的宣传作品。他们会说‘这是你需要包含的元素，这是你必须避免的元素。按下这些按钮来吸引家庭主妇，按下这些按钮来吸引小商人，等等。我没有那样做。我想我可能会尝试以这种经过计算的方式来写作，但我不确定结果会如何。就我朝这个方向而言，我接受了奥利弗的想法，即我应该尝试用小说作为媒介来传达我的信息。

“我用什么做了 特纳日记 我想象自己是革命组织厄尔·特纳的成员。我把自己置于他的皮肤里，通过他的眼睛观察我创造的虚构情境。或者也许是通过我的眼睛；作为伯爵的我和作为我的伯爵真是太好了。不管怎样，我试着想象我会如何应对他所处的各种情况，我会做什么，以及组织中的其他人会如何反应和行为，然后从那里开始。由此产生的结果将会得到与我心态相似的人更同情的解读，我理解这一点。

“对于那些基本上具有商业观点或受女权主义思想影响的人来说，这本书不会引起很大的反响。比如说，一个聪明人关心他周围看到的所有问题——种族冲突、经济全球化的影响、这个国家的去工业化、道德的崩溃，它不会得到接受的回应。在美国，电视和其他媒体的负面影响——但谁只是希望这些问题消失而不让他感到沮丧或让事情变得混乱。他担心犯罪，因为这使他无法按照自己想要的方式享受生活。他的生意曾多次被拦或被盗。现在，这对他来说是一个天大的麻烦——一件事的保险费用很高。他希望有人对所有这些问题做点什么，这是肯定的，但是，实际上，他根本不在乎我关心的基本问题。 特纳日记。他只想解决问题，这样他就可以不受干扰地享受生活。

“这样的人不会接受这本书。他们会说，‘天啊，一场革命！哦，这对生意不利，对利润不利。”或者他们会因为清理我们所处的混乱而发生的所有流血、痛苦和暴力而变得苍白，这在书中是这样的。但我加入这些并不是因为我嗜血或无政府主义者或只是想震惊任何人。它之所以存在，是因为我认为这就是历史运作的方式，当旧秩序让位于新秩序时，通常会出现广泛的流血、痛苦和混乱。所以我只是按照我想象的方式来写它。

“现在，如果我想吸引普通中产阶级消费者，那么我就会描述这些问题 特纳日记 以一种沉默、委婉的方式处理问题，然后我会让一个白马骑士政客出现在现场——我们都可以想到一些可能性来用作这个角色的原型——然后他会赢选举和打击坏人，你瞧！美国将恢复到 1925 年左右的原始状态：黑人将回到自己的位置，犯罪得到控制，孩子们不再聪明地模仿他们的父母，等等——所有这些都不会影响“特朗普先生”的生活方式。星期日 “纽约时报”.'是的，他会与此相关，因为这与他的心态产生共鸣。

“但即使我尝试写一本这样的书，它也不会有太大的生命力。我只是无法将我的精神投入到这样的事情中。我按照自己的方式写了它，有些人读了它——不是我们一直在谈论的那些人，而是其他人，而且是很多人——这让他们大吃一惊。它们确实与这本书相关。 “该死，这有道理！”他们思考——这些想法牢牢地印在他们的脑海里，而且这不仅仅是一瞬间的事情。他们加入了国家联盟，并从那里开始，与以前的方式不同。

“所以当有些人读 特纳日记 令人震惊的是，还有许多其他人深受这本书的影响。与“恐惧者”所相信的相反，这些人和我并不比他们低等。如果这些惊恐的人们真的想要理解书中的想法和事件，他们就必须认识到这样一个事实：他们对这些事件的反应与他们心态的限制有关，甚至更多地与他们的心态有关。他们将其归因于我或喜欢这本书的人的心态。

“当然，很多不喜欢它的人甚至没有读过这本书。他们只是通过与其他人交谈而听说过它，或者在报纸上读到过或在电视上看到过有关它的内容。但他们仍然认为自己了解这一点，因此对此有自己的看法。其中大部分是羊。其余牛群去哪里，它们就去哪里。他们相信无论什么 “纽约时报” 或网络或 全新共和国 告诉他们应该相信。无论对这本书的公认的、正确的反应是什么，这就是它们所在的地方——你可以打赌。

“我有一堆这么厚的评论，告诉人们对这本书的正确反应是什么。为主流媒体撰稿的人都不认可这本书。他们都说，要么这是一本可怕的书，显然是一个疯子的作品，要么——实际上这是更讨人喜欢的——这是一本非常危险的书。因此，对于那些确保自己站在知情者一边的人来说，他们在如何看待这本书和我方面得到了一些明确的指导。

“虽然这里没有人可能会看到它，但来自 约翰内斯堡之星 在南非写了一篇我认为不错的评论 特纳日记。他并不真正赞同这本书，但他承认这本书对于我们面临的问题一针见血，每个人都应该读这本书。他说这是一本激进的书，一本极端的书，但是里面有很多非常发人深省的东西。我喜欢。”

“在某一时刻 特纳日记，”我对皮尔斯说，“犹太人和你们所说的“近乎白人”，在加利福尼亚州被赶往灭绝之地。人们问我，‘他来这里的目的是什么？这就是他想要的吗？他提倡这种事吗？你想表达什么？

“你必须记住这一点 特纳日记 是一本小说。它是虚构的，因此根据定义，它不是一本宣传书。然而，我所做的就是让它变得现实。这些受庇护的中产阶级消费者认为巴尔干地区的塞尔维亚人、波斯尼亚人和穆斯林之间发生了什么？他们在那里大规模地互相折磨和屠杀。他们认为种族清洗是什么？这是从一开始就一直在发生的事情。这是真实的，这是人们的行为方式，仅仅因为这群人与这些现实隔绝并不意味着他们不存在。当然，这种情况贯穿了整个二战，这是我个人非常关心的一段历史。确实，每个人都听说过德国人如何清除他们国家的犹太人——事实上，这似乎就是我们一遍又一遍地听到的。但我们没有听说的是被波兰和捷克斯洛伐克等国驱逐的德国人发生了什么。两百万德国人在此过程中丧生。我的观点是，这种事情在世界上已经司空见惯了。我只是反映现实而已。”

“但你难道不担心写这样一本书会把你放逐到美国生活的边缘，边缘化你，让你看起来像一个极端主义者，超出了可接受的范围吗？”

“我知道，如果我说出我所看到的真相，我将成为社会的弃儿，受到当局、新闻媒体和[电影导演]史蒂文·斯皮尔伯格等人的影响。我意识到我将被扔到外面的黑暗中。但话又说回来，如果你自己写的书超出了当今可接受的话语范围，并且以某种方式成功出版，那么你将永远不会被邀请参加其他教职人员聚会，而且你最好已经获得终身教职并且像皮革一样坚强。”

“这本书以特纳的自杀式任务结束，他用核弹摧毁了五角大楼。你为什么要这样结束这本书？”

“当我开始小报分期付款时，结果是 特纳日记， 我遇到过一个情况，差不多就是这样。有一个组织，它试图摆脱政府，而政府也试图摆脱它。他们正在互相争斗。会怎样呢？我想象了一些事情，但我没有把整个事情计划出来。我一章一章地读，每期一章。我试图在每一集中出现一个爆炸性或充满电的事件，以保持读者的兴趣，并且我试图吸取教训。

“我试图传达的教训之一与责任有关。一个人要对自己的行为负责，包括不采取行动。厄尔·特纳是个好人，但他的行为确实不负责任（当他在酷刑下崩溃并透露了有关凤凰社的信息，而不是按照指示服用氰化物时）。他违反了规则，导致本组织遭受重大损害。他因此被判处死刑，然后获得缓刑，并有机会弥补自己的所作所为——这就是五角大楼的任务[书中的最后一集，特纳在五角大楼投下核弹身亡]。特纳认为这样做是公平和适当的。

“本组织处于岌岌可危的境地。政府正在齐心协力，最终将袭击其在加利福尼亚州的飞地。组织必须阻止这种情况的发生，他们通过摧毁位于华盛顿五角大楼的系统指挥和控制中心来做到这一点。这确实很难做到，因为政府已经清理了五角大楼周围的整个区域，以防止任何人在地面上放置炸弹。他们在五角大楼周围安装了防爆百叶窗和横梁，不让任何人进入距该地点两英里范围内。他们知道该组织拥有从空军基地获得的核武器。因此，该组织获得炸弹的唯一方法就是通过空袭。如果他们有高科技和更多的时间，他们可能会制造遥控炸弹，偷战斧导弹什么的，但他们没有，所以他们采取了低科技的方法，把炸弹放在飞机的后座上。特纳坐进去，把这该死的东西飞进五角大楼，成功完成了他的任务。这对他来说是负责任的事情，它挽救了局面，让他成为英雄，我认为这对这本书来说是一个很好的结局。”

“当然，你总是会和蒂莫西·麦克维联系在一起，”我对皮尔斯说。

“不幸的是，我从未见过蒂姆·麦克维，”他回答道，“尽管我必须说，他和鲍勃·马修斯似乎有很多共同点。” （鲍勃·马修斯，国家联盟成员，他的灵感来自于 特纳日记，在 1980 世纪 XNUMX 年代组建了自己的组织，并带来了血腥的后果。稍后将详细介绍马修斯。）

“当你第一次听说这件事时，你对俄克拉荷马城爆炸案有何反应？”我问皮尔斯。

“过了一段时间，足够的事实才被公开，这样我才能开始弄清楚发生了什么。一天晚上我正在看新闻，有一个关于一枚巨大炸弹摧毁了俄克拉荷马城联邦大楼的故事。我想这可能是恐怖炸弹，所以我很兴奋。 '这是什么意思？'我问自己。 “还会有更多爆炸事件吗？”这就是我的想法，但我真的不知道发生了什么。我们花了几个小时才弄清楚这个日期——19 月 XNUMX 日，韦科大屠杀两周年纪念日。我认为这可能是基督教身份团体之一所做的事情，因为其中一些服装非常好战。但事实证明是麦克维。 [基督教身份教义认为，上帝的选民实际上是当今盎格鲁撒克逊人和斯堪的纳维亚人的祖先。基督教身份信仰是爱达荷州海登湖一个名为“雅利安国家”的极端主义组织的基础。[275]约翰·乔治和莱尔德·威尔科克斯， 纳粹分子、共产党人、三K党成员和其他边缘人士 （纽约州布法罗：Prometheus Books，1992 年），第 368-370 页。]

“虽然我从未与麦克维说过话，”皮尔斯继续说道，“但我已经与他的律师史蒂夫·琼斯取得了联系。那是在麦克维受审之前。琼斯需要一些专家的建议，我希望我能帮助他。他担心政府会试图表明 特纳日记 向麦克维提供了爆炸计划。检察官会说，‘这是这本书中的蓝图，这是一个与这本书相关的人——他在枪支展上卖了这本书，并告诉他的军队伙伴阅读它——所以你可以看到这一切是如何结合在一起的。 '

“我告诉琼斯我知道他没有太多时间学习 特纳日记，所以我会指出政府所做的毫无意义的联系，以及书中的内容和实际案例明显不同。一方面，政府正在利用俄克拉荷马城的炸弹于上午 9 点 03 分左右爆炸以及联邦调查局 (FBI) 总部这一事实赚大钱。 特纳日记 9点15分遭到轰炸。看到其中有任何联系是很愚蠢的。你的意思是这个人坐在俄克拉荷马城的联邦大楼前对自己说，“最好不要点燃导火索，必须等到 9 点 15 分，因为它就在书里”？荒诞。

“我还向琼斯指出，联邦调查局总部使用的炸弹是 特纳日记 书里描述得很详细，和俄克拉荷马城用的完全不一样。书中的炸弹不可能用作俄克拉荷马城炸弹的配方。书里的那个是硝酸铵化肥和燃油炸弹。俄克拉荷马城的一个由硝酸铵肥料和 硝基甲烷。硝基甲烷是一种非常强大的液体炸药。它被用作火箭燃料和赛车燃料。它本身就是一种液体炸药，就像硝化甘油一样，尽管它不那么敏感。你可以用雷管引爆它，或者像麦克维那样，用导爆索引爆它。书中没有提到硝基甲烷 特纳日记。 为俄克拉荷马城制造炸弹的人并没有从我的书中得到它的配方。

“另一件事是，媒体——我认为是故意的——误解了我的书，然后政府也附和它，并将麦克维的行为与这种误解联系起来，说他正在做与媒体错误地所说的相同的事情。 特纳日记。它是这样运作的：媒体描述了联邦调查局大楼的爆炸事件 特纳日记 试图造成大量人员伤亡，产生重大影响，并向政府传达信息。任何认真读过这本书的人都知道这不是书中所讲的内容。书中该组织的动机是摧毁联邦调查局大楼地下室的一些计算机，这些计算机将用于该组织非常渴望避免的内部护照系统。书中的爆炸事件的实施者感叹许多无辜者在这次行动中丧生。他们为无辜的受害者感到痛苦。他们并不是想杀人或发送信息。

“我告诉琼斯，政府很可能会接受媒体对这本书的错误描述，并说麦克维从这本书中得到了暗示，并有同样的动机。换句话说，他们认为麦克维的灵感来自于书中从未真正出现过的东西。我认为这种情况会发生，因为老实说，我不相信政府人员能够以他们看待媒体上阐述的事情的方式以外的任何其他方式思考。他们是如此社会化、如此政治化，以至于可以指望他们会鹦鹉学舌地模仿媒体发布的供公众消费的任何内容。所以我告诉琼斯要注意这一点，并给他提供了书中的参考资料来支持他的观点。果然，政府试图通过“受启发”来强行通过 特纳日记’在他们的开场陈词中，琼斯已经准备好反驳他们了。”

“你是说你真的怀疑麦克维是受到你的书的启发吗？”

“我相信他受到了韦科大屠杀的启发。这实在是让他很生气。他甚至还去了那里。发生了什么 特纳日记 显然他的意图与他的意图无关，那就是向政府传达这样的信息：‘你不能做你在韦科所做的那种垃圾事，因为你会遭到反击。’”

“但是你的书似乎不太可能给麦克维提供了如何发送该信息的想法？”

“不。正如我之前所说，他显然对制造炸弹的了解比我在书中写的更多。 特纳日记， 因为他有一枚更先进的炸弹。”

“是的，但只是卡车里装炸弹的想法。”

“这是显而易见的事情。你不必从我的书中得到这一点。如果你想摧毁一个大目标，你需要一枚大型炸弹，而你获得它的方法是用卡车来运送——而不是把它背在背上。他们就是这样炸毁黎巴嫩海军陆战队军营的，也是美国驻贝鲁特大使馆被炸毁的。当犹太人炸毁耶路撒冷的 KingDavid Hotel 时（1946 年），他们把炸药放在牛奶罐里。所以他们所做的可能就是开着卡车过来，然后用手推车之类的东西把奶罐运进来。蒂姆对军事事务非常感兴趣，我想他可以获得有关如何制造炸弹的军事手册。”

“据我所知，他们发现了一个信封，里面装着你书中复印的页面。”

“他们发现了一张复印的纸，上面有几个人的引言，其中一个来自 特纳日记。但也有引述——”

“我认为塞缪尔·亚当斯就是其中之一。”

“可能。不管怎样，一些知名人士发表了关于暴政和自由人与之斗争的责任等等的言论。这只是一段来自 特纳日记 与其他著作一起。事实上，我觉得我的同伴很好。”

“我认为这段话是——我写下来的——来自第六十一和六十二页，内容是关于官僚和政客如何不会因为他们的所作所为而受到惩罚。”

“有可能，”皮尔斯回答道。 “具体细节我还真不知道。”

“有报道称，麦克维在爆炸发生前几周就与你们的组织——全国联盟保持了联系，”我说道。

“两天内，麦克维或使用电话信用卡的人打了五六个电话到我们位于亚利桑那州莫哈维堡的电话答录机。这些电话是从亚利桑那州金曼的汽车旅馆打来的，显然麦克维就住在那里。当您拨打该号码时，您会得到一条四分钟的录音消息，然后有机会留下您的姓名和地址，以便我们向您发送信息和图书目录。您还会获得一个可以写信的地址。我不知道消息后是否确实留下了地址，也不知道为我们管理机器的成员是否做了任何事情。

“我不明白为什么有人会不止一次地拨打这个号码。为什么有人会打电话给我们的接听服务五六次？我想如果有人不确定第一次的地址是否正确，他可能会第二次拨打电话应答服务，但为什么要拨打五六次呢？我想到的是，也许汽车旅馆里有三个人，或者两天内有四五个人，麦克维说：“嘿，你必须听这个消息——拨打这个号码。”因此，一个人会打电话说‘这真的很好’，然后让另一个人打电话。”

“你没有麦克维在西弗吉尼亚州打过电话的记录。”

“不。有一个流传甚广的故事——我怀疑是莫里斯·迪斯（南方贫困法律中心的）编造的——爆炸发生两周前，蒂姆·麦克维拨打了我未公开的号码，并与我进行了四十五分钟的交谈。那不是真的。联邦调查局有从每个可以与麦克维联系的地方打出的电话记录，但没有人拨打过这个号码。”

“所以你从来没有和他说过话，也没有任何书面信件——什么都没有？”

“我们事先没有与蒂姆·麦克维联系过，”皮尔斯回答道。

“根据你对麦克维的了解，你对他有何看法？”

“我从未与他接触过，但我和几个接触过的人谈过，他们对他评价很高。他们说他是一个行为举止像士兵的年轻人。他并没有试图摆脱这件事。我认为他最后引用最高法院法官布兰代斯的话非常符合整个事件的特点。布兰代斯本质上说政府是人民的老师，并且以身作则。如果你有一个无法无天的政府，那么如果人民做出无法无天的行为，你就不能责怪他们。如果政府希望人民遵守法律，政府就必须遵守法律。

“蒂姆可能和鲍勃·马修斯有很多共同点，因为他是一个非常严肃的人，他非常认真地对待韦科发生的事情。实在是让他很担心。他可能想，‘我的政府已经失控了。他们怎么可能做他们所​​做的事？那个大院里的这些人并没有打扰政府，政府只是进来屠杀他们。”

“如果他们想逮捕这个大卫·科雷什，他们可以很容易地做到，当他进城洗衣服时，他经常这样做。他们本可以从当地治安官那里得到他的日程安排。但 BATF 想要一个媒体机会，并对自己说，‘这里有一群疯狂的邪教分子，他们拥有他们不应该拥有的枪支，我们会大肆宣传这件事，把所有的电视摄像机都放在那里，这将明年我们所有人都会升职，并从国会获得更多拨款。”这就是他们的想法。他们认为，‘如果一群人受伤，谁在乎呢。他们不像我们。他们是别人。他们有一个疯狂的宗教。所以拧他们吧。我们将利用它们来进行宣传。

“但整件事适得其反。很多人事后都看到了这一点。当然，蒂姆可以看到这一点，他认为一个政府会做这样的事情，实在是太不道德了，必须采取一些措施来表达公众的愤怒，而且，就像鲍勃·马修斯一样，当蒂姆决定应该做点什么时他没有把这件事留给别人来做。”

“在你看来，麦克维的所作所为在道德上合理吗？”

“这有点复杂。如果有人对政府发动战争，平民就会被杀害。但你必须着眼于更大的前景。假设你正试图拯救我们整个种族，就像厄尔·特纳那样 特纳日记。你知道，这样做的过程中必然会造成人员伤亡，其中包括许多不想卷入冲突双方的无辜者。在这种情况下，如果这是战争的一部分，那么对俄克拉荷马城进行轰炸在道义上是合理的。

“但如果你要参与战争，你就必须满足某些要求。其中之一是你必须有一个看似合理的策略，一个可以合理论证的计划将使你实现你想要实现的目标。如果麦克维只是用一拳来传递信息，那么它的道德合理性就值得商榷。在这种情况下，你很可能会说这是一条过于昂贵的消息。”

“如果麦克维确实受到了你写的东西的启发，而且在我看来，他很有可能受到了启发，这会让你烦恼吗？”

“如果是这样的话，我唯一担心的就是它的法律方面。我希望将来非常小心，对我所写的内容发表免责声明，表示这是虚构的而不是宣传。我会让律师制作一些东西并将其以很小的字体打印在扉页的背面。但事实是，我们正在为我们人民的生存而进行一场战争。在战争中，人们会仓促行事，这并不罕见。通常，战争之前都会发生边境事件，像俄克拉荷马城这样的地方可能就是边境事件。如果一个白人小孩子在其中一件事情中丧生，我和其他人一样感到遗憾。就此而言，如果一个白人孩子在车祸中丧生，我会感到很难过。但我并不主张我们禁止汽车，因为有人在汽车中丧生，包括那些可能长大成为伟大科学家或诗人的无辜者。同样，我也不赞成因为一些边境事件或战斗夺走无辜生命而取消战争。事实上，拯救人民的战争越早发生越好，因为如果我们等待，将会有更多无辜的生命丧生。这样的战争越早发生，就越干净。以后就乱了。”

1970 世纪 1970 年代初期，皮尔斯制定了基于种族的宗教取向，为他与国家联盟的发展方向提供精神基础。他说，他需要为他所整理的东西取一个名字，于是他想出了宇宙神论。他不确定这个词是他在百科全书中看到的还是自己编造的。有一天，当我和他一起在西弗吉尼亚州的办公室里时，我请他帮助我理解宇宙神论的含义。他从办公桌上站起来，走到文件抽屉里拿出一些小册子，稍微整理了一下，然后把其中三本递给了我。 “你可以看一下这些。早在 XNUMX 世纪 XNUMX 年代末，我就写了这些关于宇宙神论的文章。他们听起来有点天真，但他们就在这里。”

我花了一两分钟仔细查看它们。三本小册子各有二十页左右，封面上醒目地印着生命符文。这些小册子告诉读者，生命符文或生命符文是宇宙神论社区成员在夹克翻领或衬衫上佩戴的徽章。当然，它也是国家联盟的象征。生命符文是北欧古代字母表中的字符之一，代表着诞生和更新的过程。宇宙神论文献说，它意味着“我们努力追随的向上的生命之路”。[277]____, 路径 （弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿：宇宙神论社区，1977）。

当我翻阅这些小册子时，我注意到它们是用生硬的、类似圣经的散文写成的。其中之一，题为 路径，于 1977 年印刷。第二个， 论生物，于 1979 年印刷。第三个， 论社会，于 1984 年印刷。它们是由宇宙神组织而非国家联盟制作的。我向皮尔斯询问了这个宇宙神组织的情况。

“国家联盟是第一位的。”皮尔斯回答道。 “我们每周日晚上在华盛顿的办公室举行会议。联盟的成员也被邀请带了其他人来，各种各样的人都出现了。事实上，种类太多了——但我会讲到这一点。我记得来的最有趣的人之一是约翰·甘特。甘特拥有医学和物理学学位，是乔治华盛顿大学的教授。他从事医学研究，并担任空军顾问。他还是一位业余天文学家——事实上，月球上有一个以他的名字命名的陨石坑。他大约十五年前去世了，我从他那里继承了一些天文仪器。所以我有这样的人来参加周日晚上的会议。

“在那些周日晚上，我会放映从当地图书馆借来的电影。他们来自一个名为 文明 由一位名叫肯尼思·克拉克的英国人主持。我认为该系列节目可能已在 PBS 上播放。 [确实如此。] 克拉克是一个相当狡猾的人。虽然他从未直接谈论种族问题，但他的系列中有很多隐含的信息。例如，在其中一集中，他将纽约古根海姆收藏的非洲部落面具与反映希腊艺术缩影的贝尔韦代雷雕塑的阿波罗进行了比较。克拉克表示，虽然雕刻的面具确实是艺术品，但可以公平地说，阿波罗雕塑是更高艺术感性的表达。这种事他做过很多次了，对我来说这说明他敏感、聪明、有洞察力，没有被政治正确所颠覆。同时，他也不想与周围的力量对抗。因此，正如人们所说，他会提出这些小提示，然后将其作为“智者之言”。

“克拉克电影结束后，我会发表演讲，其中一些我们有录音。 [上一章中解释的“我们的事业”就是其中之一。]一些谈话涉及种族差异、白人和黑人之间的比较等问题。我知道斯蒂芬·杰伊·古尔德（哈佛大学进化理论家）和其他人不同意我的观点，但我相信留在热带的群体进化得没有迁移到北半球的群体那么快。北方人民必须应对气候的严重季节性变化，而在热带地区足够的态度和行为根本无法让你在很久以前的北欧生存。在这种充满挑战的环境中，有一个更加严格的选择过程。结果是白人进一步进化。我们比黑人更能发展某些能力。进化发展，特别是种族差异，是宇宙神论背后的基本思想。不过，如果你看一下我整理的那些关于宇宙神论的小册子，你会发现种族问题根本没有被太多提及。

“当我在周日谈论比赛时，我注意到它吸引了某些类型的观众。其他时候，我从克拉克的一集中吸取的教训更加微妙，并且与我们作为一个民族和一个文明的本性的某些方面有关。我注意到有些人对此感兴趣，但我可以看到第一组人的目光呆滞，他们喜欢比赛材料。发生的事情是，有些人希望我告诉他们我们将如何解决华盛顿特区的黑人和犹太人问题。他们不想听到任何其他事情。在他们看来，我们有这些非常紧迫的问题需要处理，所以别谈哲学的东西了，谁想听这个？

“我对他们思维方式的态度是，是的，我们面临着迫在眉睫的问题，但如果我们想找到一个好的、持久的解决方案，我们需要考虑我提出的其他问题。一些参加会议的人同意我的观点，而另一些人则不同意。所以我所做的就是把小组分开。我会邀请每个人参加一个周日的全国联盟会议，然后，每隔一个周日，我会只邀请那些我认为愿意接受我想谈论的更基本问题的人。第二个团体成为宇宙神论社区。

“宇宙神论团体不仅仅涉足抽象事物。有时我们会讨论一些非常实际的事情，比如如何抚养孩子。假设你是一位父母：你怎样才能阻止你的孩子被那些正在破坏我们文明的人接管呢？有什么办法可以与电视、学校系统以及你的孩子接触到的腐败孩子竞争吗？我们遇到了这样的问题。

“过了一段时间，我们——我指的是宇宙神论团体——决定尝试一项实验是值得的。我们会尝试创造一个比现在更受我们控制的环境，与那些分享我们价值观的人一起生活，并在这种环境中抚养我们的孩子。我们讨论了购买一些土地来建立社区。我对大家说，‘看，我有几千美元的积蓄可以用来支付，但这还不够。其他一些人也将不得不付出一些钱。我想开设一个银行账户。我还告诉他们，‘我们必须以商业化的方式来做这件事。我们真正是一个教会——无论如何，我们就像一个教会。那么我们为什么不称自己为教会呢，因为这样做有一些好处。一方面，我们不需要纳税。

“当我说这一切时，我真的不知道自己在说什么。例如，无论如何，您都不必为我们设立的基金缴税。我们可以称自己为阿贾克斯土地征用协会，任何名称，并且向该实体提供的所有礼物都可以免税。它不一定是一座教堂。不过话又说回来，作为教会有一些优势，因为如果你是阿贾克斯公司而不是教会，并将资金存入生息账户，你就必须为基金产生的利息纳税。但当时我并不知道所有这些细节。

“我还与宇宙神论团体讨论过，任何对人们的生活产生影响和塑造的事物都不仅仅是一个想法。这是一个有具体体现的想法。它不仅有教义，还有仪式、歌曲和祭司的法衣，诸如此类。例如，如果您走进卫理公会仪式，您可以立即将其与圣公会仪式或罗马天主教仪式区分开来。

“事实证明，我们确实把自己组织成了一个教会。所以首先我们是宇宙神论社区，然后我们成为宇宙神论社区教会。我原以为如果我们成为一个教会，我们就会合并并拥有董事会等等，但后来我发现弗吉尼亚州[皮尔斯的业务位于弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿，就在华盛顿郊外]并没有合并教会。国家的态度是它和教会不应该有任何关系。教会应该管理自己的事务，而不是要求国家替他们做。”

“有多少人参与了教会？”我问。

“大约二十岁，”皮尔斯回答道。

“你在教会里有牧师之类的头衔吗？”

“我从来没有正式的头衔。 “老师”是我经常使用的一个词。当我必须与政府税务机构等打交道以获得某些资格时，我会称自己为部长。但我对此总是感到有点好笑和尴尬，因为牧师的想法让我想起了这些大腹便便的伪君子，戴着花哨的领子，在周日早上向羊群传教。我不想与这件事有任何关系。”

我通读了皮尔斯给我的三本关于宇宙神论的小册子，并听了他 1976 年在一次周日晚间会议上发表的演讲录音，题为“宇宙神主义：未来的浪潮”。我从中得出的结论是，皮尔斯所说的宇宙神论是一种称为泛神论的宗教取向的一个版本。如果将宇宙神论置于泛神论的背景下，它有助于理解它。

泛神论作为一种宗教观点和传统，与我们在这种文化中更熟悉的其他三种观点不同：有神论（犹太教和基督教就是例子）、无神论和人文主义。[278]参见阿拉斯代尔·麦金泰尔（Alasdair MacIntyre）的《泛神论》， 哲学百科全书，卷。 5（纽约：麦克米伦和自由出版社，1967 年），第 34 页。 XNUMX. 尽管泛神论在西方社会没有牢固的立足点，但它在世界上并不是一种罕见的现象。[279]以下对泛神论的大部分讨论都来自迈克尔·莱文（Michael Levine）， 泛神论：一种非有神论的神性概念 （伦敦：Routledge，1994）。 道教、佛教的某些形式、儒教、美洲印第安部落的宗教以及基督教影响之前北欧的异教都体现了泛神论的观点。许多希腊哲学家反映了泛神论的参考框架，包括柏拉图、亚里士多德和斯多葛派，以及斯宾诺莎、费希特和黑格尔等近代哲学家。 （顺便说一句，斯宾诺莎是犹太人，许多人将泛神论一词归咎于斯宾诺莎。）威廉·华兹华斯、拉尔夫·沃尔多·爱默生、DH·劳伦斯、罗宾逊·杰弗斯和加里·斯奈德等著名文学人物的作品揭示了泛神论的世界观。 。

这个世界观是什么？用于表达泛神论取向的词语差异很大，但它们所共有的都是一幅万物如何组合在一起的图景。泛神论者超越了细节，这个离散的实体和那个实体，而感知到事物的包罗万象和统一的秩序。泛神论认为一切存在的事物——自然、动物、人类、一切——形成一个完整的整体。对于泛神论者来说，一切都是相互关联的。因此，泛神论者认为人类生活不是独立和自足的，而是世界不可分割的一部分。这种对整体性的强调不应被理解为泛神论者主张“万物一体”，世界上不存在独立的实体，对区别的感知是一种幻觉。相反，泛神论者——或者无论如何，他们中的大多数人——认为构成世界的各种元素并不存在。 仅仅 清楚的;最根本、最重要的是，它们并没有区别。当泛神论者看待世界时，他们看到了联系，他们看到了统一。泛神论之所以成为一种宗教，而不仅仅是一种见解或哲学，是因为泛神论者所看到的这种统一性是 神圣的-这是 神圣。对于泛神论者来说，世界不仅仅是一组相互关联的具体现象。还有更多的东西——称之为上帝——而这个“更多的东西”注入、渗透到了世界。它是一切的一部分，一切都是它的一部分。它使世界神化并使其神圣。当泛神论者看世界时，他们看到的是上帝。

如果将泛神论与有神论进行对比，就可以更好地理解——基督教和犹太教也属于这一类。有神论传统的特点是相信有位格的上帝——也就是说，具有人类特征的上帝。这位有神论的上帝有自己的个性和举止——也许就像一位发号施令的父亲。这是一位能够听到、看到、做出道德判断、做出决定并采取有目的行动的上帝。他是焦点：所有的力量和圣洁都从他身上流淌出来。他是如此强大，以至于他有能力创造宇宙，他现在以父母或君主般的方式监督着这个宇宙。他是分离的，有别于自然和人类。他不属于这个世界。他是与众不同的、高高在上的、超然的，俯视着我们所有人。

与有神论的上帝的适当关系是恭敬和虔诚的。人们向他祈祷。他是一个崇拜的对象——唯一的崇拜对象。崇拜者并不认同神或寻求与神融合或成为神；那将是亵渎的。相反，有神论传统中宗教实践的基本目标是与上帝建立正确的关系。培养这种正确的关系会给敬拜者带来平安和幸福，或许还有一种狂喜的喜悦，并指导他按照上帝的旨意生活，逃避上帝的不悦或愤怒。崇拜者从上帝那里获得力量和指导——或许还得到弥赛亚的帮助——在一生的任务中实现今生的救赎和来世的幸福和宁静。

在有神论传统中，相信个人不朽。信徒会以某种形式死去。死亡固然是令人遗憾的，但这种遗憾因相信来世会比今世更好而得到缓解。事实上，在有神论传统中，地球上的存在在很大程度上被视为为来世做准备的时期。

像有神论者一样，泛神论者相信上帝。泛神论并不是无神论的变相形式，也不是自然主义对宗教信仰的替代。不同之处在于，泛神论者不认为上帝是一个人或任何类似人的东西。泛神论的神没有人格。它没有头脑。它不像人类那样感知。它不会以人的方式根据情况制定意图并采取行动。泛神论宗教往往不像有神论宗教那样强调宇宙的创造者的概念。泛神论更多地倾向于关注上帝和世界——无论它们/它是如何形成的——只是作为此时此生要遇到和考虑的现实。

泛神论否认上帝的超越性、他者性。上帝并不在那儿，在那儿，在别的地方， 超越。神在这里，是这一切的一部分， 内在的。神穿透宇宙中的一切。神存在于自然之中。神就在人类之中。上帝、人和自然并不是截然不同的——或者至少不是完全不同的，或者只是不同的。让事情变得有点复杂的是，虽然泛神论强调上帝的内在性，但这个传统中也有一种倾向，认为上帝的存在似乎没有被宇宙完全耗尽。也就是说，神既有超越的维度，也有内在的维度。一些学者使用泛神论（注意中间的“en”）一词来区分泛神论，即强调上帝的内在性和超越性。[280]同上，第74-75页。
（以下对泛神论的大部分讨论来自迈克尔·莱文， 泛神论：一种非有神论的神性概念 （伦敦：劳特利奇，1994 年）。） 所以我们需要小心，不要设置僵化的二分法。然而，为了我们的目的，要记住的最有用的区别是超越的上帝（有神论）和内在的上帝（泛神论）之间的基本区别。

如果上帝存在但不是一个人，那么它是什么？ （在最后一句话的末尾使用“He”将会使上帝个性化，并且与泛神论思想不一致。）人们发现泛神论中有多种用来描述上帝的词语。上帝被不同地描述为原力、神圣火花、世界原则和宇宙计划。或者，上帝也可以被称为世界之灵或世界之魂。还有其他可能性，上帝可以被称为神圣统一体或神圣统一体的过程或展开。在泛神论传统中，还有另一种提及上帝的方式，世界被称为上帝的自我表达。这些并不是可以想象到的最清晰的术语，但话又说回来，在宗教问题上，含义的模糊性并非闻所未闻，而且它们确实传达了泛神论如何看待上帝的基本含义。

人类与泛神论的上帝的正确关系是什么？由于神不是一个人，也不是与一切事物分开的，所以它不是像两个人彼此之间那样的个人关系。对这位神没有任何恭敬的态度。与有神论中人们对上帝存在的敬拜反应不同，泛神论中充满了尊重、敬畏和惊奇。泛神论宗教强调的是对统一知识的探索和某种个人资源的发展，而不是虔诚的实践：即，有助于一个人生活的理解、智慧和个人力量。按照统一，或者换句话说，这将允许一个人与宇宙融为一体。因此，冥想和沉思活动比祈祷更符合泛神论。事实上，任何活动——无论是智力活动还是非智力活动——都可以让人们更近距离地接触事物的本来面目，更好地理解事物是如何结合在一起的，以及它们在更大的事物体系中的位置——包括走进去树林——是泛神论传统中适当的宗教实践。

在泛神论中，更注重融入这个世界，而不是赢得罪的宽恕或在来世的一席之地。而且，与有神论相反，这种整合很可能包括与上帝的融合，实现一个人与上帝的同一性或同一性。结果可能是幸福和快乐，但更有可能的是内心彻底的平静或真正的家的感觉。大多数泛神论者否认他们能够以某种有意识的形式在死亡后幸存下来，因此他们并不是通过宗教来寻求个人的永生。他们倾向于相信，无论发生什么，都必须在这一生发生，不需要上帝或弥赛亚的帮助。对他们来说，死亡是令人遗憾的，因为它剥夺了我们的经验和在这个地球上做进一步善事的可能性。

揭示皮尔斯宇宙神论信仰的泛神论的其他特征包括：

• 需要强调的是，大多数泛神论者并不是一元论者。他们并不是说一切都是一。他们并不主张只有一个存在，并且所有现实要么与它相同，要么与它的模式相同。他们是多元主义者。也就是说，他们相信事物有很多种。他们并不认为真实的、有限的实体的存在不利于统一。作为多元主义者，这些泛神论者不仅仅看到一种人性，而是看到多种人性。皮尔斯将这个想法带到了比赛中。有些人会看到一种人类，而他会看到多种人类。
• 与这种多元化心态相一致，泛神论者不相信只有一种方式可以按照统一的方式生活。他们并不坚持为每个人提供一种生活方式或一套活动。他们相信，只有生活在由自身本质决定的范围内的人们才能最好地实现个人福祉和整体福祉。我们的想法是，考虑到您是整体的一部分，您就可以做对您来说很自然的事情。例如，皮尔斯并不认为他选择的那种自己挖井、自己砍柴的乡村生活方式适合每个人。在他看来，他的方式不是获得幸福的唯一方式，也不是服务生命力或造物主（他对上帝的条款）的唯一方式。
• 沿着同样的路线，泛神论者并不认为任何一种人类属性高于其他属性，因为自动地处于比其他属性更高的层面上。例如，良好的头脑可以是积极的，也可以是消极的，这取决于它的用途。事实上，人们对泛神论的智力能力抱有一种冷静的态度。或者无论如何，这对于美好生活来说并不是必需的，而且实际上可能会干扰它。
• 泛神论者对人文主义持批评态度。他们拒绝世俗化、以人为本的世界观。在他们眼中，人文主义将人视为唯一的关​​注点，视为最重要的。泛神论者认为，人文主义者已经用对人的崇拜取代了对上帝的崇拜。这与泛神论认为人是自然的一部分的观点相矛盾，也与泛神论认为生命的意义和目的不能也不应该仅针对人类来制定的论点相矛盾。
• 泛神论者不同意存在主义的立场，即让人类简单地选择自己生命的意义。泛神论者认为，人的存在和环境中存在固有的规定，这些规定赋予人义务，并限制他选择人生道路的自由范围。人就是他，是万物的一部分，这些现实指导着一个人应该如何生活。泛神论者说，人不应该被视为自身的目的。
• 泛神论者批评依赖科学作为存在问题答案的来源。泛神论者认为，世界上还有更多的事情超出了自然科学及其认识事物的方式所能解释的范围。泛神论者并不声称了解有关神圣统一的一切。他们承认，他们仍然对创造、不朽以及生命的意义和目的存有疑问，但他们也不相信科学能够解答这些问题。
• 泛神论者通常相信自由意志。大多数情况下，他们不是决定论者。他们不相信人的行为和命运是由上帝的意志或尘世环境决定的。他们相信选择的力量和道德责任。他们的道德概念源自神圣统一的本质，而不是源自人格化的上帝及其话语的本质。泛神论者认为，一个人的行为不能脱离他的整体背景来评估。泛神论者根据个人与统一体的关系来判断个人行为和整个生活的善良。泛神论者认为，与统一体和谐相处在道德上是好的，与统一体不一致的生活在道德上是坏的。
• 正如所料，泛神论者倾向于热爱自然并寻求与自然事物建立联系。他们倾向于认为，如果一个人不接触自然，就不太可能形成泛神论的世界观。如果一个人不曾在荒野中远足，不曾凝视过夕阳，不曾在水面上航行过，如果一个人不曾走出自己的小轨道，他就不太可能看到泛神论的真理。泛神论者与自然的关系更多的是伦理关系，而不是神秘关系。他们认为，与自然保持适当关系的生活以自然的保存和保护为前提。他们往往是环保主义者。他们倾向于认为技术破坏了环境并将人们与环境分开。他们倾向于认为城市生活不利于个人福祉和团结的福祉。然而，与此同时，他们倾向于将泛神论视为一种可以在任何地方（包括城市环境）生活的生活方式。
• 泛神论者对有组织的教会和宗教领袖持怀疑态度。他们怀疑，按等级组织、以神职人员为中心、建立帝国的宗教能否促进泛神论所追求的生活。

皮尔斯不记得他从哪里得到了宇宙神论这个词。我做了一些调查，发现英国浪漫主义诗人、批评家和哲学家塞缪尔·泰勒·柯勒律治在十九世纪初使用了这个词。在柯勒律治的著作中，我曾遇到过，宇宙神论指的是上帝与宇宙的认同，而另一种情况则指的是对世界的崇拜。[281]亨利·纳尔逊·柯勒律治，编辑， 塞缪尔·泰勒·柯勒律治的文学遗迹，卷。 2（伦敦：W. Pickering，1836 年），第 326、350 页。 所以皮尔斯可能是从阅读柯勒律治的著作中学到这一点的。该术语的另一个可能来源可以在皮尔斯 24 年 1977 月 XNUMX 日的周日晚间谈话中找到，题为“宇宙神主义：未来的浪潮”。[282]威廉·皮尔斯，“宇宙神论：未来的浪潮”，录音带编号。 412（西弗吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书，1991）。 在那次演讲的早期，皮尔斯引用了作家 DH 劳伦斯的话说：“我们和宇宙是一体的。宇宙是一个巨大的生命体，我们都是其中的一部分。太阳是一颗伟大的心，它的颤动贯穿我们最细小的血管。月亮是一个巨大的闪闪发光的神经中枢，我们永远为之颤抖。所有这一切都是真实的，正如人们在伟大的过去所知道的那样，并且他们将再次知道这一点。”因此，阅读劳伦斯的作品可能是皮尔斯的灵感来源。但那是很久以前的事了，皮尔斯不记得了，所以这只能是猜测。

在“宇宙神论：未来的浪潮”演讲中，皮尔斯将宇宙神主义置于其历史和哲学的视角中。他将宇宙神论者描述为造物主目的的承载者，或者换句话说，宇宙意志的承载者。他说，历史上许多人都理解过宇宙神论的某些部分，他列举了许多例子，其中包括古希腊和罗马哲学家、北欧异教哲学家、华兹华斯和蒲柏等浪漫主义作家，以及欧洲哲学家费希特。和黑格尔。皮尔斯在演讲中表示，泛神论传统是欧洲白人历史的核心。他断言，在基督教被不断扩张的罗马帝国输出到欧洲之前，欧洲宗教强调神与人的一体性。他说，这种强调与基督教会强调神与人的区别和分离的二分概念形成鲜明对比。

皮尔斯认为，二十世纪适合泛神论的观点。他告诉听众，现代科学已经使我们从静态的宇宙观转向动态的宇宙观，而泛神论比教会将世界视为已完成的创造的概念更符合这种范式。皮尔斯指出，自达尔文以来，世界开始被视为正在经历持续且尚未完成的变化或进化。他断言，泛神论比基督教等有神论宗教更符合这种观点。皮尔斯承认，可以肯定的是，基督教教义及其静态的宇宙观仍然被许多人接受。然而，他指出，我们这个时代的主要思想家很少接受基督教的世界观。

皮尔斯告诉他的听众，宇宙神论与大多数其他宗教不同，因为它们依赖于通过启示所揭示的真理或权威所传承的真理。它也背离了纯粹的理性主义。宇宙神论建立在客观和主观知识的综合之上。宇宙神论是造物主的内在意识、我们的理性和感官告诉我们的关于我们自己和世界的信息以及科学发现的结合。此外，如果我们愿意关注宇宙神论，它就符合来自我们内心深处、来自我们的基因、来自我们集体种族灵魂的真理。

皮尔斯认为，宇宙神论在这种文化中被接受所面临的问题并不是源于其有效性。宇宙神论面临的一个主要问题是，大众永远没有机会根据其优点接受或拒绝它，因为他们从一开始就永远不会了解它。那些控制美国公共话语的人——新闻、娱乐、出版业和学校——竭尽全力审查和诽谤诸如宇宙神论之类的东西。另外，即使人们确实设法了解宇宙神主义的原则并接受它们的有效性，他们仍然面临着在生活中体现它们的严峻挑战。考虑到当前的宗教和意识形态正统观念，需要良好的个人独立性和坚强的性格来承受当人们思考“错误”的事情或以“错误”的方式行事时所导致的拒绝、压力和制裁。 。皮尔斯说，解决这种状况的最佳方法是打破我们彼此之间的孤立，形成一个“意识和血统”的社区。

在我看来，宇宙神论基本上是萧伯纳在《泛神论》中阐述的泛神论观点的阐述。 人与超人当皮尔斯在加州理工学院读研究生时，这部戏剧给他留下了深刻的印象。[283]萧伯纳（George Bernard Shaw）， 人与超人：喜剧与哲学 （纽约：企鹅出版社，1981 年，最初出版于 1903 年）。 皮尔斯修改了萧伯纳的提出，改变了一些地方的术语，猛烈抨击了萧伯纳的某些想法并淡化了其他想法，从萧伯纳提出的内容中进行了推断，并添加了一些他自己的新东西，特别是围绕人们如何组织自己以实现宇宙神主义理想。描述皮尔斯表述的最终结果的一种简写方式是，宇宙神论本质上就是肖在《宇宙神论》中所说的。 人与超人 带有国家社会主义的色彩。

萧伯纳写的是生命或生命力，而皮尔斯的宇宙神论则谈论的是造物主。总的来说，生命力和造物主是同义的概念，皮尔斯的造物主观念可能比肖的生命力观念更具神圣或神圣的内涵。虽然造物主就像生命力一样本质上是内在的，但我在皮尔斯的概念中比沙维亚的概念更多地发现了一种超越的“其他”维度。如果人们能够区分哲学和宗教，那么在我看来，宇宙神论中的造物主比萧伯纳的生命力更有宗教感觉。当然，我们这里说的是二十年前的皮尔斯。在我与他的交往中，我从未听他提到过造物主——造物主一直是生命力，为生命力服务。我的猜测是，二十年前，直到 1980 世纪 XNUMX 年代中期皮尔斯搬到西弗吉尼亚州之前，皮尔斯比现在更有宗教倾向。他目前对“生命力”语言的使用以及“造物主”谈话的缺失可能反映出对四十多年前开始的邵氏影响的回归。

与萧伯纳的生命力一样，宇宙神论中的造物主概念具有动态特征。造物主不仅仅是存在，不仅仅是存在，不仅仅是开始了这一切，现在正在观察、判断或有选择地干预地球事务；造物主是一个 力 并且绝对是 去某个地方。皮尔斯使用“冲动”一词来表达造物主的那个维度。 《敦促》在宇宙神论中寻求的发展方向与萧伯纳的《生命力》相同：走向自我意识、自我理解和自我完善。正如萧伯纳的表述一样，宇宙神论对于人与造物主的关系具有动态的性质。这不仅仅是一个问题 作为 与造物主或与它整合；这是一个问题 做 与造物主。又如萧伯纳那样，这种行为采取了服务造物主的形式，成为造物主的大脑，并采取行动推进造物主的进程。

宇宙神论认为，人可以选择是否侍奉造物主。然而，我在宇宙神论中比在萧伯纳中更多地感受到这种服务不仅是一件好事，而且你真的 应该 去做吧。

宇宙神论同意萧伯纳的观点，即服务生命力或造物主的方法不只有一种。两个方向都一样，重要的是要掌握大局，了解这一切是如何运作的，然后找到对你来说自然且最有效的方式来支持生命力/造物主的过程。

宇宙神论突出了泛神论的多元观点，并利用它来服务于种族议程。宇宙神学说强调，整体的各个部分与万物的统一一样是基本的现实，我们不能忽视各个部分之间的差异，包括它们的质的差​​异。总而言之，从宇宙神论的角度来看，个体在本质上彼此不同，有些人比其他人更好，对于种族来说也是如此。根据宇宙神论，可以根据个人过去的经历和行为以及未来的发展和创造来衡量个人，种族也是如此。

肖在 人与超人 暗示将人类培育成更高的存在形式作为生命力的目标，但他在很大程度上隐瞒了这一点。另一方面，宇宙神论则将这一过程置于中心舞台，并以粗体印刷。宇宙神论虽然没有明确指出（因为在萧伯纳那里也没有），但它清楚地表明种族并不是指整个人类，而是指白种人。宇宙神论的核心是白人种族主义世界观。泛神论的概念 世界-灵魂在宇宙神论中成为 种族-灵魂。

因此，当宇宙神论者谈论服务造物主时，他们指的是改善白人种族，即他们的种族。宇宙神论有一个默认的假设，就像萧伯纳很可能有的那样，这是一种宗教、哲学，无论如何称呼它，只适用于白人。这是关于白人种族和为了白人种族的。正如萧伯纳所言，宇宙神论中的种族改良是用尼采的术语来构想的，也就是说，是朝着超人理想的运动。基于与萧伯纳相同的进化论观点，宇宙神论认为这种进步很可能涉及斗争和危险。

萧伯纳和宇宙神论都认为现代生活总体上不利于种族的进步。 （萧伯纳将现代生活等同于地狱。）虽然在萧伯纳那里间接地暗示了这一点（他的戏剧中的魔鬼是犹太人），但字里行间却非常清楚地写着，宇宙神论认为犹太人是实现宇宙神论的障碍。种族的根本动力和命运。

萧伯纳和宇宙神论之间的一个区别在于对生命力/造物主仆人的期望。对于Shaw来说，存在着“象牙塔”和“社会工作”的混合期望。也就是说，个体——唐璜所说的——最好做的就是进入象牙塔，即足够后退，与日常生活保持足够距离，以便能够反思并变得见多识广和明智。足以成为生命力所需的哲学家的大脑。同样，唐璜或其他愿意走这条路的人，根据他所获得的知识和智慧，将承担生命力社会工作者的角色，即帮助它朝正确的方向发展。然而，在所有这一切中，这种生活方式固有地存在一种“退缩”、个人消除的品质：我从唐璜所说的戏剧中得到了这种感觉 他们、其他人以及 it，生活，还有什么 他们 就像什么 他们 正在成为。但他说的不是 他自己 什么 he 正在成为。

当我阅读皮尔斯整理的宇宙神论材料时，可以肯定的是，正如我所说的那样，有象牙塔和社会工作方面的内容，但还有更多。宇宙神论中有一个观念，造物主包括在内 您 和 me。我们是世界的一部分，而不仅仅是旁观、批评和介入以帮助事情发展。我们——你和我——所做的不仅仅是 指路 和 做好准备，和这些事情一样重要、一样关键。我们有责任 成为方式，在我们自己的存在和生活中创造人类向上发展的典范。

萧伯纳和皮尔斯的表述之间的最后一个区别是：在萧伯纳中，你得到的印象是唐璜对天堂的追求是个人的追求。他要自己去那里。相比之下，在宇宙神论中，这种探索是一种共同的、共同的努力。宇宙神论传达的信息是，你或我不可能靠自己到达那里。我们需要其他人的支持和支持性的社会环境，才能走向伟大。

现在我们来看看皮尔斯在 1970 世纪 1980 年代和 XNUMX 年代初整理的关于宇宙神论的三本小册子或小册子。 路径第一篇于 1977 年出版，阐述了宇宙神论的基本原则。[284]路径。 它描述了造物主、冲动、生命之路以及个人成功走上这条道路的方式，以及宇宙神论社区。

人、世界和造物主并不是独立的事物，但人是世界的一部分，世界是整体的一部分，而整体又是整体的一部分。 is 创作者。有形的宇宙是造物主的物质表现。苍穹上所有炽热的太阳；恒星之间无形的气体；月亮上寂静、冰冻的山峰；尘世森林中沙沙作响的树木；黑暗海洋深处的大量生物；人是造物主物质表现的一部分。[285]同上，第。 3。
(路径。)

 

冲动是万物的根源，并体现在万物之间的关系中……冲动存在于虚空的稀薄气体中，因为它们有一个目的，那就是燃烧的太阳和由它们形成的所有行星。冲动存在于大地之中，因为它有一个目的，即在其上繁衍生息的植物和动物的领域。冲动就在人之内，因为他有一个目的，那就是更高的人。所有这些事情的目的都是生命之路上的步骤，通向一个目的，即造物主的自我实现：自我创造者的自我完成。[286]同上，第。 4。
(路径。)

 

那些获得神圣意识的人将沿着生命之路走向他们的命运，即神性；也就是说，生命之路通过永无休止的一系列状态向上延伸，下一个是更高人的状态，最后是大我实现的造物主的状态。[287]同上，第。 6。
(路径。)

 

真正的理性将为他们照亮道路并给予他们洞察力；这将是对他们内在造物主的敦促的强大帮助……真正的理性寻求根据整体的内在意识来指导人类的行为，而虚假的理性则不然……真正理性的男人或女人寻求万物的秩序，他避免混乱。他对自己生活中的所有元素与世界之间的和谐关系感到高兴。他拒绝那些冲突的、不相适应的、陌生的东西。他很高兴知道昨天的真实和美好的事情明天也将是真实和美好的。通过秩序与和谐，他寻求真正的进步，这是生命之路的上升；但他避免轻率的改变，因为这种改变会破坏过去与未来的和谐。他喜爱真理，厌恶虚假。他喜爱美丽，厌恶丑陋。他热爱一切高贵的事物，而厌恶卑鄙的事物。真正理性的男人或女人的所有这些倾向就像在他的灵魂中燃烧的神圣火花所发出的光芒。这个神圣火花是整体的内在意识。这是造物主的冲动在他身上的存在。[288]同上。
(路径。)

 

那些将成为神圣意识共同体成员的人的聚集被称为宇宙神论共同体；它是那些将成为符文人民的社区。符文人民因这四件事而闻名：知识、意识、纪律和服务……知识意味着对真理的理解……意识意味着那些超越知识并参与其中的人的觉醒状态整体的内在意识存在于他们最内在的灵魂中……纪律来自内部和外部。它是从外部强加给宇宙神论社区成员的。通过如此强加，它会从内部带来纪律的增长。没有纪律就没有掌控力，如果一个人无法掌控自己内心冲突力量的混乱，就无法提供全面的服务。但是强加​​的纪律和从内部生长的纪律使那些获得了知识和意识的人能够掌控自己的力量，以便这些力量可以服务于造物主的目的......神圣意识社区的成员，觉醒者，人民符文的，以一种新的方式服务，这是更高人的方式，真正理性的方式。他们是造物主目的的有意识的代理人……通过他们的服务，他们恢复了向他们的命运的上升，这就是神性。[289]同上，第9-10页。
(路径。)

第二本小册子， 论生物，描述了一个人的尺度，创造更高人时必须克服的危险，以及整个共同体和共同体内每个成员必须承担的责任。[290], 论生物 （弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿：宇宙神论社区，1979）。

【判断一个人的价值的品质】是内心方向感的真实性、体质的健全性、血统的纯洁性。[291]同上，第。 14。
(, 论生物 （弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿：宇宙神论社区，1979）。）

 

[创造更高人必须克服的两个最大的危险]是精神的腐败和血液的腐败。首先是由于外星种族灵魂的存在而导致的精神腐败。外来的价值观和态度与尚未意识到自己的身份和使命的高等人类的价值观和态度混合在一起。随之而来的是那些价值观混乱的人的血液的腐败；他们不再能够追随内心的方向感，在混乱中他们将自己的血统与外来血统混杂在一起。他们和他们的后代变得令人憎恶，在高级人类的血统中传播进一步的腐败。[292]同上，第。 15。
(, 论生物 （弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿：宇宙神论社区，1979）。）

 

他们必须意识到自己的身份和使命；他们必须寻求并发现自己种族灵魂的价值观，抛开所有来自外来种族灵魂的价值观；他们必须从他们中间清除所有已成为可憎之物的人和所有具有外族血统的人……。[293]同上，第。 16。
(, 论生物 （弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿：宇宙神论社区，1979）。）

 

他必须将那些一代又一代地改变所有生物种子的力量掌握在自己手中，并且必须在觉醒意识的指导下使用这些力量，将他的股票提升到将人与更高人分开的门槛，领域。内在意识与神圣意识的区别。[294]同上。
(, 论生物 （弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿：宇宙神论社区，1979）。）

皮尔斯制作的第三本也是最后一本关于宇宙神论的小册子是 论社会.[295]_, 论社会 （弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿：宇宙神论社区，1984）。 事实上，这本小册子并不是关于整个社会，而是关于宇宙神论社区本身——尽管本文件的标题中可能隐含着一种默认的希望，即有一天整个社会都会按照宇宙神论社区的方式运作。 论社会 描述了社区生活中宗教和世俗的融合（社区是大写的，因为皮尔斯指的是宇宙神论社区），并讨论了四种主要的社会机构：家庭、学校、军队和政府。皮尔斯是柏拉图在其论文中提出的社会和政治安排的崇拜者 共和国 [296]柏拉图， 共和国 （纽约：牛津大学出版社，1993）。 具有讽刺意味的是，天主教会的组织方式也体现在他在这本小册子中所写的内容中。

共同体既是教会又是国家，它并不将其存在的这两个方面分开。它并没有将追求知识的指导与提高意识或塑造品格的指导分开。它没有将宗教和道德训练与其他训练分开。它通过相同的机构引导每个成员走向知识、意识和纪律。[297]论社会, p. ，P。 15. XNUMX。

 

[共同体的四个基本机构]是家庭，共同体通过家庭得以孕育和建立；学院，通过学院进行自我训练并增长知识；守护者军团，通过它保卫自己；以及它自我管理和指导的等级制度。[298]同上，第。 16。
(论社会，第 15.）

 

社会尊重每一个父亲和母亲，以及两者结合的家庭，其程度与他们所生孩子的价值相对应；这种价值是通过儿童出生时固有的品质以及通过适当的培养来发展和加强其品质来衡量的。[299]同上，第。 9。
(论社会，第 15.）

 

在学院，孩子们在语言、历史、音乐和其他文化遗产方面接受统一的基础教育；他们意识到自己存在的精神基础和宇宙神论的真理；他们开始通过纪律来建立意志和品格的终生过程。[300]同上，第。 10。
(论社会，第 15.）

 

监护人军团是共同体抵御内部和外部敌人的机构：抵御那些会伤害共同体生命所依赖的任何事物（包括物质生命和精神生命）的人。社区中被选为监护人的人……只能来自那些注定终生为同一目标服务的人，而且他们只能是其中最好的。[301]同上，第10-11页。
(论社会，第 15.）

 

等级制度是共同体自我秩序的制度。这是一个祭司团体……在结构上，它是一系列向上的台阶……当他在知识、意识、纪律和服务方面取得进步时，他会受到上级的评判；根据他们的判断，他可能会在一生中一步一步地向上进步。[302]同上，第。 11。
(论社会，第 15.）

 

等级制度进行指导和判断。当需要时，它塑造、构建、制定或改变规则；否则它会保留它所创造的东西。它着眼于未来，预见社区的需求，并努力满足这些需求。最重要的是，等级制度使社区不断向上发展：获得新的知识、更高的意识水平、更强的力量和纪律、更有效地服务于造物主的目的。[303]同上。
(论社会，第 15.）

“我并不总是清楚你在录音带和你给我的小册子中所说的一些话的含义，”我对皮尔斯说。 “当你谈论‘造物主目的的承载者’和‘造物主内在意识与我们种族灵魂的完美结合’时——”

“当时我试图在头脑中理清思路，”皮尔斯打断道，“我可能用轻率的方式表达自己。我想我现在可以做得更精确、更清晰。只是当我第一次读到《萧伯纳》时，我感觉我的脖子后面的汗毛都竖起来了。我觉得这是很少有人有的真实的、对现实的洞察力，能像他这样表达的人就更少了。正是这个过程——这个目的，这种对更高意识的原始渴望——正在试图继续下去。肖为我提供了不同的视角。我现在可以从这个角度来审视事物了。这与我对历史、人性等的了解相符吗？当我这样做时，事情确实有意义了。如果他们不这样做，我就会拒绝。”

“你在使用‘神圣火花’这样的术语时试图表达的含义，不仅仅是我们所认为的生物进化的展开，对吗？”

“是的，我所说的远不止这些，或者至少是一种看待进化的不同方式。它是某种自我意识的发展。在我看来，有一股生命力在黑暗中伸出，试图开发一种更敏感、更精致的工具来理解自身。我们——或者，我应该说，我们中最优秀的人——在美丽的面前，比如真正的美术作品，都会有这样的感觉。这是我们对这位伟大哲学家的尊重的基础。这不仅仅是对伦理或道德原则的认可；它被最好的东西所吸引；它被天才所吸引，被真正最好的东西所吸引。正是我们的那部分人知道，通过讲笑话来赚钱、成为首席执行官或成为名人所取得的成就并不真正值得尊重。这种情感，如果你想这么称呼的话，在我看来并不具有生存价值，但尽管如此，尽管它被淹没在如此多的人的世界里，但它已经演变为人类的一部分。我们的本性以及所有其他事物。我试图捕捉人们的这种冲动，这并不是我们通常认为的进化的一部分。”

“当你在这里谈论自我意识时，你的意思是——”

“我的意思不仅仅是从流行的心理学意义上理解我是谁，或者某种政治或社会的自我理解。我所说的超越了这一类的事情。从最基本的意义上说，它是我相对于我周围的一切的身份，以及事物从何而来以及它们将去往何处——我想你会说，这才是真正的大局。这是一种更高的意识。”

“当你说‘我的命运是神’之类的话时……”

“这就是尼采的用武之地。如果我参与的这个过程如我们所希望的那样继续下去，结果将是尼采所说的超人的出现。这是一种我们很少有人能够理解的存在。超人可能是迈向更高境界的一步。如果人们无限地推断，最终的结果——我们只能开始想象——我称​​之为神性。我们需要成为这个过程的代理人。我们需要为它提供服务。”

“我听到你在我审阅的材料中说，我们每个人都可以选择是否服务——或延迟，或漠不关心——生命力，这个基本过程。”

“从历史上看，只有少数人选择服务生命力。但对我们来说幸运的是，在欧洲有一个有影响力的少数人看到了这个更大的现实，并将我们的文明推向积极的方向。一大群人也跟着跟着。现在我们要做出选择：我们是否要承担起成为生命力有意识且自愿的代理人的责任，还是不承担责任？新千年的未来取决于我们的答案。”

“当你 1985 年来到西弗吉尼亚州时，至少在某种程度上是为了将宇宙神教会搬到这里，并形成你在阿灵顿谈论的那种社区，对吗？”

“是的。我拿着自己积累的钱，以宇宙神社区教会的名义买下了这块土地。来到这里后，我发现有一条法律限制教会可以持有多少财产。如果没有限制，教会就会积累越来越多的财产，而且不缴纳任何税款，政府也得不到任何收入。这种法律源于英国的经验，那里的教会占据了相当大比例的土地。亨利八世只是通过没收教会的土地来解决这个问题，但那是一个短期的解决方案，他们提出了这些法律。在西弗吉尼亚州，限制是六十英亩，所以我把这个数额放在宇宙神社区教堂的名下，其余的放在我的名下。

“事实证明，这座教堂从未真正去过西弗吉尼亚州的任何地方。其他人没有搬出去，我也实在没有时间在这里建教堂——我得让联盟活下去。如果你像我一样是一支单人乐队，那么你所能完成的事情是有限的。然后与国税局发生了一场大战，我输了。他们说我们不是教会。他们显然面临着取消我们的免税待遇的压力。美国国税局派了一些特工来这里检查我们。我还留着他们写的报告。它有这样的事情，比如这里的道路非常崎岖，不利于人们获得服务，我们没有足够的椅子，人们不能坐在哪里，而且没有中央供暖系统，所以不能”冬天不要提供服务——一派胡言。”

（美国国税局撤销了皮尔斯的教会身份，法院维持了这一撤销。皮尔斯认为，美国国税局是在回应圣约教会反诽谤联盟施加的压力。虽然绝大多数人认为 ADL 是在积极的一面是，作为偏执和不宽容的反对者，皮尔斯将其视为犹太人控制思想和剥夺自由的工具。他认为反诽谤联盟旨在伤害甚至摧毁任何妨碍犹太人的人或事物。这个国家的议程，其中包括他和他的组织。）

“你认为你的种族观点是国税局调查你案件的真正原因吗？”

“如果我宣讲的教义不会激怒犹太人，他们就会放过我们。这些山上有各种各样的蛇处理邪教和其他一切，国税局让他们称自己为教堂，并不打扰他们。这对联邦预算来说并没有太大的消耗，而且国税局通常不会给人们带来不必要的麻烦，从而保持良好的风度。但就我们而言，他们决心抓捕我们，这完全是因为我在种族和犹太问题上所教授的内容。”

“他们有没有说过这就是他们来追捕你的原因？”

“他们永远不会说你不能成为一个教会，因为你没有正确的教义，所以他们测量坑洼并计算椅子。但事实是，他们之所以来到这里，是因为我们没有宣讲正确的事情。”

“我知道你读了很多亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴的著作，”我对皮尔斯说。 [鲍勃·德马莱斯向我提到过。] 索尔仁尼琴对你的思想有重大影响吗？

“我读过索尔仁尼琴写的一些文章，尽管他与我的发展并没有直接关系。直到我自己的观点得到很好的阐述之后我才读他的书。然而，我确实发现他很有趣，并从他所写的内容中挖掘了一些事实。例如，我读过他1978年在哈佛大学的毕业典礼演讲。它已经出版并广泛传播。我对自己说，‘这个人是极少数有勇气在公开场合说出这些话的人之一，而不是你在几乎所有毕业典礼演讲中都会听到的胆怯的胡言乱语。我真的很感激他说了一些需要说的话——基本而真实的事情，可能没有其他能够进入该论坛的人会告诉这些哈佛高年级学生和他们的父母。我试图以我自己的方式向这个社会传达我们需要做出彻底改变的信息，尽管我不同意索尔仁尼琴的所有观点，但我尊重他在哈佛所做的事情。”

亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴（Alexander Solzhenitsyn），1918年出生的俄罗斯作家，1970年诺贝尔文学奖获得者。他的著作包括 伊万·丹尼索维奇一生中的一天, 1914年XNUMX月, 第一圈及 古拉格群岛.[304]亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴（Alexander Solzhenitsyn）， 伊万·丹尼索维奇一生中的一天 （纽约：Noonday Press，1991）。亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴， 1914年XNUMX月 （纽约：Bantam Books，1974）。亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴， 第一圈 （纽约：Harper 和 Row，1968 年）。亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴， 古拉格群岛 （纽约：Harper 和 Row，1974 年）。 1945年，索尔仁尼琴因发表反斯大林主义言论被捕，最终被关进哈萨克斯坦的劳改营。他的著作（其中一些是在被拘留期间写在纸片上）描述了劳改营的恶劣条件，并指责斯大林的存在。[305]有关索尔仁尼琴的传记信息，请参阅芭芭拉·卡迪 (Barbara Cady)， 20 世纪的偶像：200 位做出贡献的男女 （纽约：The Overlook Press，1998），第 334 页。 XNUMX.

索尔仁尼琴攻击苏联共产党，1973年被驱逐出苏联，来到美国，住在佛蒙特州。索尔仁尼琴在这个国家的拥护者震惊地发现，他的愿景不是民主，而是基于俄罗斯东正教教义的神权政治。在美国期间，索尔仁尼琴谴责西方社会日益颓废。 1994年，随着苏联解体和俄罗斯政治形势的变化，他回到了祖国。

索尔仁尼琴在 8 年 1978 月 XNUMX 日发表了皮尔斯提到的哈佛毕业典礼演讲。一万到一万五千人聚集在毛毛细雨中聆听这位著名作家的演讲。索尔仁尼琴的演讲标题为“分裂的世界”。那次他没有说任何他多年来没有说过的话，但尽管如此，许多人对他们所听到的内容感到惊讶和推迟。

索尔仁尼琴告诉观众，西方正在为精神生存而战，而它的对手就是现代性本身。索尔仁尼琴宣称，现代世界带来了“道德贫困”，以及“自主的、非宗教的人文意识的灾难”。 “两百年甚至五十年前，”他宣称，“在美国，一个人仅仅为了满足自己的奇思妙想而被赋予毫无目的的无限自由，这似乎是完全不可能的。……”然后：“人真的高于一切吗？难道他之上就没有上位神灵了吗？人的生活和社会活动首先应该由物质扩张来统治，这对吗？是否允许以损害我们整体精神生活的方式促进这种扩张？”[306]引用 DM Thomas 的话， 亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴：他一生中的一个世纪 （纽约：圣马丁学院，1998 年），第 462 页。 XNUMX.

索尔仁尼琴的哈佛毕业典礼演讲遭到了自由派人士的强烈批评。这 “纽约时报” 社论写道：“先生。在我们看来，索尔仁尼琴的世界观比他认为如此令人恼火的随和精神要危险得多……生活在像索尔仁尼琴先生这样的狂热分子统治的社会里，对于那些不认同他的愿景或不认同他的人来说，生活必然会感到不舒服。的信念。”这 “华盛顿邮报” 指责他“对西方社会存在严重误解，西方社会选择根据人与人之间的差异来组织其政治、社会和文化事务”。[307]同上。
（引自 DM Thomas， 亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴：他一生中的一个世纪 （纽约：圣马丁学院，1998 年），第 462 页。 XNUMX。）

我告诉皮尔斯，我最近读了索尔仁尼琴的传记，他的观点与皮尔斯的观点之间的一些相似之处令我震惊。[308]托马斯。 我想到了索尔仁尼琴对唯物主义、理性主义和个人主义的反对，以及他的威权主义、灵性和他的反犹太主义。然后是他对自然和非城市生活的喜爱：他说他选择住在佛蒙特州卡文迪什是因为“那里的人们的简单生活方式、乡村和漫长的白雪冬季”。[309]同上，第。 458。
（托马斯。） 甚至索尔仁尼琴也完全沉浸在他的作品中（“我的一生只包含一件事——工作。”）这让我想起皮尔斯对自己作品的全身心投入。[310]同上。
（托马斯。）

“我明白你怎么能这么说，”皮尔斯回答道。 “但索尔仁尼琴和我之间也有很多不同之处。天啊，我什至不认识这个人，所以我不能确定，但​​我认为索尔仁尼琴比我更像基督徒。事实上，我根本不是基督徒；我对此没有任何信心。我想他的性格比我清醒得多。例如，当我观看视频放松时，它可能类似于詹姆斯·邦德电影。性和暴力，这就是我喜欢的。我在工作中感到有点紧张，有很多挫折等等，观看一部真正暴力的电影对我有一种宣泄作用——“该死的，把它交给那个王八蛋！”我不认为索尔仁尼琴会这么做。无论如何，我总是尝试在有限的范围内做自然的事情。我本质上是一个裸体主义者。当然，我不会在办公室里裸奔，但在家里我会。我不认为索尔仁尼琴会做这样的事情。”

“我想到的一件事是索尔仁尼琴在他的书中对犹太人的负面描述。”

“我注意到在 第一圈，”皮尔斯回答道。 （在那本书中，三个主要的犹太人物——鲁宾、卡根和罗特曼——被描绘成邪恶的捍卫者。）

“在里面 1914年XNUMX月 也是，”我说。 （无政府主义者和刺客博格罗夫，犹太人，软弱胆怯，是一个没有骨气的知识分子，执着于奢侈，自怜，用蛇形的意象来描述。[311]参见托马斯，第 489 页。 XNUMX.)

“我应该读那本书。我开始做这件事，但后来发生了一些事情，所以我没有完成它。”

“我注意到，”我对皮尔斯说，“当索尔仁尼琴被问及他的反犹太主义时，他否认了这一点。他说，‘哦，不，我对犹太人没有任何敌意。这些都是孤立的人物，他们恰好是犹太人。我只是在描述历史。我不知道索尔仁尼琴对犹太人的看法到底是什么，但他可能和你的想法是一样的，并就如何在他所处的情况下最有效地表达他的想法做出了战术决定。你有没有想过如果你减少对犹太人的批评，更加外交化，这对你来说可能会更好，如果你以这种方式而不是正面对待它，也许你能够接触到更多的人？”

“如果我这样做的话，也许对我来说会更容易。但是你看，我这样做已经三十二年了，虽然我想在这段时间里我本可以扮演一个对我来说不自然的角色，但我只是不想这样做。对我来说唯一的方法就是做对我来说很自然的事，也就是说出我真正相信和真正感受到的。我并不是在批评索尔仁尼琴；我只是在批评索尔仁尼琴。我只是说说我的方法。另外，我认为有必要 谁 成为一名极端主义者，因为 谁 全部说出来，即使是那些让人害怕的事情或者他们不想听的事情。我认为这是我自然的角色。其他比我更以人为本的人，更习惯因为与他人的互动而调整自己的言行，他们可以给出更温和的信息，让普通人更容易接受。但这不是我的方式。也许我可以这样做一段时间，但我认为只要我一直在做这项工作，我就不可能这样做。

“从某种意义上说，我所做的就是自我放纵。很少有人能像我一样，放纵自己，准确地说出自己想说的话。大多数人每天都必须与许多不同类型的人互动。他们说话时必须保持外交和谨慎。这是有道理的。你不能到处冒犯你的邻居和同事。机智和礼貌以及诸如此类的事情对于保持社会顺利运转非常重要。我尽量保持礼貌。我尽量避免不必要地冒犯别人。但与此同时，当其他人不这样做时，我会勇于说出来。如果我发现某件事并且认为它是真实的、重要的并且应该说出来，我就会说出来。我没有退缩。我不调节它。我不会把粗糙的边缘修整，以免冒犯别人。哦，这并不完全正确——有时候，如果某件事可以用有点迟钝的术语来描述，那么就没有必要去讨论很多毛茸茸的、令人反感的细节。对智者说一句话就足够了。合适的人会理解信息，而不必踩踏羊。但大多数情况下，让我们这样说吧，我沉迷于说实话、全部实话，除了我所看到的事实之外，什么都没有。这是做这项工作的回报之一。”

1983 年全国联盟年度大会于 XNUMX 月在华盛顿特区举行，皮尔斯邀请了一位来自太平洋西北地区的年轻矿工鲍勃·马修斯 (Bob Mathews) 发表演讲。马修斯已成为联盟成员三年，并在他居住的华盛顿州周围的农民、牧场主和工人中积极为皮尔斯的组织招募新成员。皮尔斯要求他向大会上的人们介绍这项工作的进展情况，以及他所在地区的总体情况。鲍勃同意这样做，并在家里的餐桌上写下了演讲稿，然后飞往华盛顿参加会议。

皮尔斯期待着鲍勃的演讲，并在发送给联盟成员的每月公告中进行了宣传。他附上了鲍勃的照片和一篇关于鲍勃招聘活动的简短文章。皮尔斯不知道鲍勃想做什么。鲍勃真的很喜欢 特纳日记。他仔细研究了书中的每一个字，并把它交给他的朋友们阅读，并附上他的最高推荐。但鲍勃的问题在于，他不满足于仅仅阅读这本书并同意其中的内容。鲍勃是一个实干家。他的内心有一团火在燃烧；人们就是这样评价他的。他要创建一个自己的组织，就像书中的那样，并开始一场像他读到的那样的革命。鲍勃是认真的。

由于联盟公报中出现了图片和文字，出席大会的一百多名与会者都对鲍勃的演讲充满期待。那天他们在讲台上看到的鲍勃·马修斯是一个三十岁左右、看上去很孩子气的男人。他身高约 5 英尺 7 英寸，肌肉发达。他长得好看，五官均匀。他的深棕色头发很短，分到一边，倾向于向前垂到额头上。那些认识鲍勃的人说，他有一双淡褐色的眼睛，闪烁着强烈而坚定的光芒——他们说，这就是你在看着他时注意到的他。大多数认识鲍勃的人都认为他是一个严肃而坚强的人，他们喜欢他。即使那些厌恶他的政治观点的人也喜欢鲍勃这个人。[312]参见斯蒂芬·辛格勒， 与死亡对话， 纽约：Beech Tree Books，1987），第 126 页。 XNUMX. 在我看到的他的照片中，他让我想起一个休假回家的士兵，或者，我想到的另一个联想，是我看到的年轻的工人阶级父亲带着他们的妻子和年幼的孩子走过购物中心的商店在婴儿车里。

有马修斯演讲的录音带。他的声音很年轻。他的演讲充满张力和热情，给人一种即时感和震撼力。鲍勃讲了十分钟左右，时间并不长。 1983 年夏末的那天，他所说的摘录可以体现他的信息：

我的兄弟姐妹们，我从太平洋西北地区雾气缭绕的森林山谷和山脉中向你们传达团结的信息，呼吁采取行动，并要求你们作为雅利安复兴先锋队的成员坚守职责，并最终，雅利安人的全面胜利。觉醒的迹象正在整个西北地区萌芽，而且不只在双拳农民和牧场主中……这项任务并不容易。电视卫星天线像毒蘑菇一样在耕耘者的领地里如雨后春笋般涌现。电子犹太人正在悄悄溜进最偏远的农场和牧场的客厅。破坏比赛的狗无处不在。在MetalineFalls，我们打破了犹太思想的锁链。我们不知道“我的”这个词的含义；这是“我们的”：我们的种族，我们全体人民。十颗心，一颗心！一百颗心，一颗心！万颗心，一跳！我们生来就是为了战斗和死亡，并继续我们的人民流动。未来是现在！所以像男人一样站起来，把敌人赶到海边！像男人一样站起来，在我们祖先的绿色坟墓上发下神圣的誓言，你们将夺回我们祖先发现、探索、征服、定居、建设和牺牲的一切！像男人一样站起来，夺回我们的土地！仰望星空，宣告我们的命运！在MetalineFalls，我们有一句话：失败，永不！胜利永远！[313]罗伯特·马修斯，“武装号召”，录音带（希尔斯伯勒，西弗吉尼亚州：国家先锋图书公司，1991 年。

鲍勃的演讲赢得了全场起立鼓掌。再过一年多一点，他就会死去。

罗伯特·杰·马修斯 (Robert Jay Mathews) 1953 年出生于德克萨斯州马尔法，在亚利桑那州凤凰城附近长大。从十几岁起，鲍勃就对自己是一名白人产生了强烈的种族自豪感。这不仅仅是因为他对少数族裔抱有偏见，对他们怀有敌对情绪，怨恨他们，就像通常认为持有强烈种族观点的白人一样。鲍勃并不反对任何事物，而是支持某些事物：白人。他坚信，是白人创造了西方文明的伟大。他还坚信美国正在衰落，白人的处境远不如以前，他们必须对此采取行动。十几岁的时候，他加入了约翰·伯奇协会，并试图成立一个名为“自由之子”的生存主义团体，但这并没有取得多大进展。鲍勃还参与了亚利桑那州的税收抗议运动。他最终因未缴税而被捕并被缓刑。[314]詹姆斯·里奇韦, 脸上的血：三K党、雅利安民族、纳粹光头党和新白人文化的崛起，第二版，（纽约：Thunder Mouth Press，1995 年），第 109 页。 XNUMX.

高中毕业后，鲍勃没有继续上大学，这让他的父母非常失望。鲍勃告诉他们，他不想在大学里经历他们强加给你的所有自由主义宣传，无论如何，他想继续他的生活。他想离开菲尼克斯，这是肯定的。有太多的法律、太多的城市问题、太多的少数民族以及太多的普通人。因此，当鲍勃二十岁出头时，他拿出一张北美地图并开始用手指抚摸它。他的手指停在了华盛顿州的一个偏僻的村庄，梅塔林福尔斯，这是加拿大边境前的最后一个城镇。鲍勃装上他的皮卡，开车前往梅塔林福尔斯开始新的生活。很快，他就在铅锌矿找到了一份体力工作。[315]单数，p。 125.

一位作家这样描述鲍勃去过的地方：

梅塔林瀑布地区几乎没有少数民族，居住在那里的白人可以想象他生活在一个没有种族多元化或充满拥挤、复杂城市的国家。一个人可以梦想在这里重新开始，从头开始重建自己的生活。马修斯也很喜欢小镇所在的风景。加拿大的塞尔扣克山脉在远处拔地而起。黎明时分，成年鹿走过梅塔林瀑布的主要街道。大雪只会让山丘和常青树更加美丽。上帝的国家。这就是北欧的气候，雅利安人和斯堪的纳维亚人在他们的继承人来到美洲之前就已经繁盛起来。在过去的几个世纪里，这些种族群体催生了北欧和维京传奇，讲述了北方战士在战斗中的勇气和力量。他们不惧怕死亡：如果他们英勇牺牲，瓦尔基里（北欧神话中至高无上的奥丁的女仆）会将他们的灵魂带到瓦尔哈拉，在那里他们将被供奉在不朽的大厅里。现代宗教——奥丁教，就是从这些传奇中诞生的。鲍勃·马修斯对此很熟悉。他喜欢它。他对它的看法就像他对西北通道的看法一样——两者都可以激励一个人成为英雄。[316]同上，第。 127。
（单数，第 125 页。）

没过多久，鲍勃就买得起该地区五十英亩的土地，并在上面建造了移动房屋。多年来，鲍勃尝试了很多方法来使土地、农作物等盈利，但没有真正成功。

鲍勃想要组建一个家庭，他以一种非常规的方式认识了他的妻子，通过全国发行的广告 地球母亲新闻。他的广告上写着：“寻找一位成熟、聪明的女性，年龄在 18-25 岁之间，与我一起生活并在华盛顿分享我的土地。”最终有一百三十名女性回复。最引起鲍勃注意的这封信是来自堪萨斯人的，她大学毕业后搬到了怀俄明州，名叫黛比·麦加里蒂。黛比写信给鲍勃说，她认为女人能做的最重要的工作就是抚养孩子。 “除非家是一个体面的地方，否则你不可能拥有一个美好的社会，”黛比写道。[317]凯文·弗林和加里·格哈特， 沉默的兄弟会 （纽约：Signet，1990），第 74 页。 XNUMX.

鲍勃开车去怀俄明州见黛比。她搬到了 MetalineFalls，并于 1976 年结婚。事实证明，黛比和鲍勃没有自己的孩子，但他们收养了一个儿子。后来，鲍勃去世前几个月，他和他在运动中认识的一位女士齐拉·克雷格 (Zillah Craig) 生下了自己的孩子，一个女儿。

鲍勃在全国联盟大会上发表演讲回到家后，立即将八个人聚集在他在移动房屋附近建造的一个类似兵营的建筑中。他说：“我邀请你来这里是因为我认为我们有一个共同的目标。”早些时候他曾与他们谈论过组建一个像《中》中那样的组织。 特纳日记，一群愿意用自己的行动来说话的亲戚。其目标是将华盛顿东部的一部分开辟为白人的家园，清除犹太人和少数民族。他们会用 特纳日记 作为完成该任务的蓝图。[318]单数，p。 131；里奇韦，p。 109.

鲍勃告诉大家他已经制定了一个计划。他说，这涉及抢劫色情商店和皮条客以及伪造货币作为筹集资金的方式。它还涉及暗杀犹太人和外邦人，他们为白人种族的毁灭做出了贡献。 “我现在告诉你们，”鲍勃说，“如果你们中有人不想卷入这件事，就可以离开。”[319]单数，p。 135.

没有人离开。

“我将要求你们每个人宣誓，你们将忠于这一事业，”鲍勃继续说道。 “我想提醒大家，这里的利害关系是什么。这是我们的孩子、亲戚以及他们的经济和种族生存。因此，当我们宣誓时，我想把一个白人孩子放在我们面前。”[320]弗林和格哈特，p。 74. 其中一位在场者的六周大的女儿被放置在圆圈的中心，作为他们即将承诺创造的白人未来的象征。她抬头看着在烛光下隐约出现在她头顶上的人影。这些人紧握双手，背诵了鲍勃所写的忠诚和致力于他们的种族和事业的誓言：。

我，作为一名雅利安战士，发誓对骑士团完全保密，并对我的战友完全忠诚。

让我向你们作证，我的兄弟们，如果你们中有人阵亡，我会照顾你们家人的福祉和幸福。

我的兄弟们，让我向你们作证，如果你们中的一个人被俘虏，我将采取一切必要措施来恢复你们的自由。

让我向你们作证，我的兄弟们，如果有敌对特工伤害你们，我将把他追到天涯海角，并把他的头从他的身上取下来。

此外，我的兄弟们，让我向你们作证，如果我违背了这个誓言，那么我将永远被我们人民的嘴唇诅咒为胆小鬼和背誓者。

我的兄弟们，让我们三三两两、成群结队地前行，像真正的雅利安人一样，拥有纯洁的心灵和坚强的意志，以勇气和决心面对我们信仰和种族的敌人。

我们在此援引血盟，宣布我们处于全面战争状态，除非我们将敌人赶入大海，并通过我们的鲜血夺回向我们祖先许诺的土地，否则我们不会放下武器。他的意志，成为我们孩子们的土地。[321]同上，第。 98。
（弗林和格哈特，第 74 页。）

事实上，该组织确实尝试过，至少在一开始，通过合法手段筹集资金：他们与美国林务局签订了一份道路清理合同。但这并没有足够快地带来足够的资金。因此，鲍勃和该团伙中的另外两人抢劫了斯波坎的一家色情商店，鲍勃的一名合伙人在此过程中殴打了一名店员。他们的收入是三十六美元。不多，但事情从那里开始升级。后来，鲍勃走进花旗银行西雅图分行，递给出纳员一张纸条，然后带着近两万六千美元走开了。[322]里奇韦，p。 111. 有一张快照，鲍勃·马修斯 (Bob Mathews) 面带微笑，身穿长袖法兰绒衬衫，手里拿着装着钱的万圣节“不给糖就捣蛋”袋子。然后是运钞车抢劫：该团伙在一辆停在 Fred Meyers 百货商店前的运钞车上抓获了一名快递员，并抢走了四万三千美元。他们又撞上了另一辆装甲车，这辆装甲车停在 Bon Marché 一家商店门前，而那辆装甲车的赔偿金额为 50 万美元。[323]同上。
（里奇韦，第 111 页。）

至于恐怖主义，该组织轰炸了西雅图市中心的一家成人电影院和爱达荷州博伊西的一座犹太教堂。这两枚炸弹都没有造成太大破坏。[324]单数，p。 206；里奇韦，p。 111. 他们开始讨论要刺杀谁。人们抛出了从亨利·基辛格到大卫·洛克菲勒再到南方贫困法律中心的莫里斯·迪斯的名字。然而，他们最终“除掉”的是一位来自丹佛、名叫艾伦·伯格(Alan Berg)、颇具争议的犹太电台主持人。这起杀戮后来成为电影的基础 谈话广播 由奥利弗·斯通执导。其中一名教团成员似乎住在丹佛地区，对伯格非常反感，伯格滔滔不绝地谈论口交的乐趣、基督教的缺陷、白人为何害怕黑人以及白人女性如何幻想关于和黑人睡觉。[325]单数，p。 15. 伯格特别喜欢怂恿右翼来电者（“你所说的一切都是谎言，好吗？你编造并推断出一个想法，就像所有狂热分子一样，比如约翰·伯彻斯、三K党成员，就像所有这些人一样。”）[326]同上，第。 181。
（单数，第 15 页。）

鲍勃策划了对伯格的袭击。他和其他几位凤凰社成员开车前往丹佛。他们在伯格的公寓前伏击了他下车的情况。凤凰社的一名成员（不是鲍勃）开始近距离射击。子弹击中伯格的脸部、颈部和躯干。伯格身后的车库门被子弹打碎了。当伯格被发现面朝上倒在血泊中时，他手中的香烟还点着。尸检报告无法确定有多少枪响，因为伯格中枪时身体正在扭动，尽管可能有十二枪左右。两颗子弹击中了伯格的左眼，然后从他的脖子右侧射出。其他子弹击中了伯格头部的左侧，并从他的颈部和后脑勺射出。[327]单数，第 19、227 页。

装甲车抢劫事件仍在继续。最大的一次发生在该州北部加利福尼亚州尤凯亚附近的一条高速公路旁。鲍勃和另外 11 个人乘坐两辆皮卡，迫使一辆布林克斯卡车停下来，然后从卡车上跳下来，脸上蒙着大手帕。其中一人举着一块牌子，上面写着“滚出去，否则就死”。鲍勃跳上卡车的前保险杠，大声喊叫两名警卫下车，但他们似乎僵住了，一动不动。其中一名劫匪名叫皮尔斯（无亲属关系），然后用自动武器在挡风玻璃上炸出了一毛钱大小的洞。这招奏效了——守卫打开门，爬了出去。

这一切都发生在高速公路上的车流中。路过的人们都目瞪口呆，有些人甚至堵住了路。在路人看来，一定像电影一样不真实。该团伙启动了链条，将装满钱的袋子从装甲车后面的钱箱里卸下来。时间在流逝——他们给自己五分钟的时间来完成这项工作，现在已经快到七分钟了。有人可能会打电话给高速公路巡逻队。交通堵塞——他们直到现在才想到这一点——可能会堵塞他们的出路。鲍勃在卡车里疯狂地捡起钱袋子并把它们传递出去。他们必须离开那里！鲍勃兴奋不已，没有注意到他携带的 9 毫米手枪从口袋里掉了出来。后来证明这是一个致命的错误，因为这把枪最终被追踪到了他，联邦调查局也知道它在寻找谁。最后，这些人跳上皮卡车加速离开，并从车后扔出钉子，以减缓追赶他们的人的速度。[328]弗林和格哈特，第 232-236 页；单数，p。 238.

凤凰社干净利落地逃跑了（除了留下的枪），当他们清点钱财时，发现赃款高达 3.6 万美元。[329]单数，p。 238. 他们用一部分钱来支付工资，并且大多数人辞掉了正常工作。资金投入到移动房屋和滑雪公寓等项目中。他们还在爱达荷州购买了一百一十英亩，在密苏里州购买了一百六十英亩，用作准军事营地。钱都花在了全地形车和枪支弹药上。该组织的两名成员成立了一家名为“山地人供应公司”的公司，旨在利用该公司向凤凰社提供物资。[330]里奇韦，p。 113. 但是，在这种情况下最令人感兴趣的尤凯亚·布林克斯抢劫案的使用——或者至少是所谓的使用——是在鲍勃和齐拉·克雷格一起东部旅行期间发生的，齐拉·克雷格此时是他生命中的女人，并且怀有身孕。他的孩子。据我所知，鲍勃从未与黛比离婚。

1984年1982月，鲍勃和齐拉前往弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿，会见了鲍勃的偶像威廉·皮尔斯。齐拉说鲍勃对待皮尔斯的态度接近崇拜。她报告说，一架小型三角钢琴占据了皮尔斯与妻子（他的第二个妻子，他于 XNUMX 年再婚）合住的小公寓中的大部分房间。齐拉说，皮尔斯告诉他们他计划将业务迁至西弗吉尼亚州一个名为米尔角的小镇。皮尔斯告诉他们，这里靠近作家赛珍珠的出生地。鲍勃和皮尔斯随后走进卧室，齐拉没有听到他们在说什么。她说，当鲍勃和皮尔斯与皮尔斯的妻子在一起时，她谈论了她对超心理学和齐拉所说的超自然现象的兴趣，这让她感到毛骨悚然。[331]单数，p。 271.

齐拉说，第二天她看到鲍勃在一个纸袋里放了一大笔钱，但她不确定到底是多少钱。她说，皮尔斯来到酒店，他和鲍勃走到外面，坐在附近的长凳上。齐拉说，透过窗户，她看到鲍勃把纸袋给了皮尔斯。[332]弗林和格哈特，第 271-272 页。 西弗吉尼亚州波卡洪塔斯县前县治安官杰里·戴尔 (Jerry Dale) 报道称，据说在与马修斯会面后不久，皮尔斯就支付了 95,000 美元现金，购买了他所拥有的 346 英亩土地。现在生活。[333]凯西·马克斯， 右翼极端主义的面孔 （波士顿：布兰登，1996 年），第 56 页。 XNUMX.

我记得在与皮尔斯的讨论中得到的印象是，西弗吉尼亚州房产的资金来自参加他周日晚上在阿灵顿举行的会议的人们的捐款以及他自己的积蓄。虽然我想想，他并没有具体说这些钱是从哪里来的，只是说他用自己“积累”的钱买了这块地。我决定不直接问皮尔斯他从哪里获得购买西弗吉尼亚州房产的资金。如果他是从马修斯那里得到的，我不会指望他会说，“当然，我用布林克斯抢劫的战利品买了这个地方”，所以我认为提起它没有任何意义。然而，我确实和那些年与现场关系密切的人交谈过，当我问他皮尔斯是否能从参加他周日晚间演讲的人那里拿出那么多钱时，他笑着回答说： “那些人？他们什么都没有。”我向皮尔斯讲述了与我交谈的人的评论，他回答说：“那个人告诉你的话非常具有误导性。参加我的宇宙神会议的人大多是专业人士。他们确实有钱，而且很多人都捐了。”我会把它留在那里。

就像皮尔斯虚构的秩序一样 特纳日记，鲍勃·马修斯命令涉足假币领域。随着手枪的掉落，伪造活动最终导致了鲍勃的垮台。发生的事情是，同意帮忙传递这笔钱的人之一是一个名叫托马斯·马丁内斯的人。鲍勃通过国家联盟认识了马丁内斯。马丁内斯在试图通过一项假法案并与当局达成协议时被抓。作为联邦调查局对他宽大处理的回报，马丁内斯会告诉他们在哪里可以找到马修斯。马丁内斯告诉联邦调查局，他计划很快在俄勒冈州波特兰市的喜来登汽车旅馆与鲍勃会面，他们可以在那里跟踪他。[334]马丁内斯写了一本众所周知的书：托马斯·马丁内斯和约翰·金瑟， 谋杀兄弟会 （纽约：麦格劳-希尔，1988）。

会议当天，联邦调查局特工和波特兰市特警队员聚集在汽车旅馆。鲍勃住在 42 号房间。其他客人被赶进汽车旅馆的小休息室，并被告知要低着头。鲍勃走到房间外伸伸懒腰，发现一名男子躲在灌木丛中，意识到发生了什么事，他冲下楼梯，经过一名向他开枪的女特工。子弹没有击中鲍勃，弹头击中了休息室的窗户，其他客人蹲在休息室里，并从石头壁炉上弹了回来。

鲍勃不知怎么地离开了那里，沿着街道跑了大约两个街区，躲到了公寓大楼旁边的一根混凝土柱子后面。鲍勃后来报告说，正是在这一点上，他决定不再被追捕，而成为猎人。几名追赶他的警察跑到柱子前，鲍勃开枪射击，打伤其中一人的小腿和脚。鲍勃后来声称，他最初瞄准了这名警官的头部，但当他看到他是一位英俊的白人时，他降低了目标。另一名警官用猎枪开了一枪，子弹击中了鲍勃裸露的持枪手，灼热的疼痛从他的手臂上涌出，鲜血从伤口中喷涌而出。鲍勃设法逃脱，但手部受伤的情况在他剩下的生命中持续了几周。[335]里奇韦，p。 115；弗林和格哈特，第 340-345 页。

鲍勃设法到达西雅图海岸惠德比岛的一所房子。他在那里写下了一份“战争宣言”。下面的摘录可以看出他当时的心态：

现在是我们人类历史上一个黑暗而惨淡的时期。我们的周围遍布着我们祖先的绿色坟墓，然而，在这片曾经属于我们的土地上，我们却变成了一个被剥夺了财产的民族。

数百万非我们血统的人侵犯我们的边界并嘲笑我们的主权要求。然而我们的人民却只是表现出无精打采的反应。

一场大病战胜了我们。为什么我们的人民什么也不做？这是什么疯狂？种族受虐狂的毒瘤是否已经耗尽了我们的生存意志？

我们的英雄和我们的文化受到侮辱和贬低。杂种部落叫嚷着要切断我们的继承权。然而我们的人民并不关心。

在这片土地上，我们的孩子们被迫接受非白人作为他们的偶像、他们的同伴，最糟糕的是，他们的伴侣。这是一个让我们直接被遗忘的过程。然而我们的人民却没有看到。

这些可怕的事情的发生并非偶然，而是有意为之。对于所有有眼睛的人来说，不言而喻的是，邪恶的阴影已经笼罩在我们曾经美丽的土地上。大量证据表明，某些邪恶的外星人已经控制了我们的国家。

我们周围的土地正在消亡。我们的城市里挤满了昏暗的人群。水已经腐臭，空气也变得恶臭。我们的农场被高利贷的水蛭占领，我们的人民被迫离开土地。

他们关闭工厂、磨坊、矿山，并将我们的工作岗位转移到海外。然而我们的人民还没有觉醒。

雅利安自耕农（小土地所有者）正在觉醒。一股被遗忘已久的风开始吹起。你听到雷声逼近了吗？这是觉醒的撒克逊人的信仰。战争正在这片土地上进行。暴君的血将会流淌。

我们将不再屈服于一个基于暴民政治的政府的统治。从今天起，我们宣布，我们不再认为华盛顿政权是所有拒绝屈服于特拉维夫及其在华盛顿走狗对我们的胁迫和微妙暴政的雅利安人的有效和合法代表。我们认识到我们的广大人民已经陷入脑白质切除、盲目服从的昏睡状态，我们不会再参与集体种族自杀！

这是战争！[336]单数，第 251-253 页。

“宣战”之后是一封“致国会的公开信”。摘录：

你们所有人不仅对美国发生的事情负有全部责任，而且你们每个人无一例外都负有部分责任。总有一天，你们每个人都将被要求承担这一责任。

 

总有一天，你们背叛了在越南牺牲的 55,000 名美国人，你们将被追究责任。

 

总有一天，你们对反美“以色列游说集团”的屈服将被考虑在内。你们投票剥夺美国的军火库，以便犹太复国主义者能够保有被盗的土地，并且你们默许一项将我们的阿拉伯朋友变成敌人的政策——这些事情是不可原谅的。

 

总有一天，你将为背叛自己的种族而付出代价。你们中的大多数人会说，你们反对对学童进行强制种族校车，你们反对将工作从白人手中夺走并让给黑人的“反向歧视”，你们反对非法移民涌入美国，因为你知道这些东西不受欢迎。但你却把这些瘟疫每一件都降到了我们头上。你们通过了“民权”法，首先让我们可以乘坐公交车，然后你们又一再拒绝明确禁止这种针对我们孩子的可怕罪行。正是你们对黑人选票的争夺和你们面对受控制的新闻媒体的怯懦，才让我们的城市变成了犯罪猖獗的丛林。您制定了雇主必须满足种族配额的要求。你们通过了移民法，引发了非白人移民大量涌入美国——一场失控的洪水。

 

我们要求你们对所有这些事情负责：为每一个在种族混合学校中受到恐吓的白人儿童，为每一个在我们城市丛林中被谋杀的白人，为每一位被我们街道上傲慢的“平等者”强奸的白人妇女，每个白人家庭都在饥饿和绝望中，因为白人工人的工作被交给了黑人。清单每天都在变长，但总有一天，所有的债务都将得到清算，你将全额偿还每一笔债务。[337]同上，第253-255页。
（单数，第 251-253 页。）

25 年 1984 月 XNUMX 日，鲍勃给华盛顿州纽波特的一家小周报写了一封信，信中写道：“可以合乎逻辑地认为，我在这个星球上的日子很快就要结束了。即便如此，我也没有恐惧。因为生命的现实就是死亡。为了确保我孩子们的未来，我做出了最终的牺牲……一如既往，为了血统、荣誉、信仰和种族。”[338]同上，第。 258。
（单数，第 251-253 页。）

7 月 XNUMX 日，联邦调查局包围了惠德比岛的房子。他们又追上了鲍勃。屋子里只有他一个人。这次他们要确保他不会逃跑。一百名特工包围了房子。他们切断了他的电源。他们试图通过扩音器进行谈判——“出来吧，我们不会伤害你。”鲍勃对此一无所知。他不会从那里出来。他的手被打伤了，还在抽痛，他用自动武器开火了。[339]同上，第。 260。
（单数，第 251-253 页。）

对峙持续了一夜，一直持续到第二天。此时，现场已经聚集了媒体。联邦调查局发射了催泪瓦斯。鲍勃一定戴着防毒面具。他继续开枪——哒哒哒哒哒哒哒哒哒哒哒哒哒哒。

他们发出了最后通牒——“放弃，否则我们就来抓你。”

鲍勃发出更多自动武器射击。

3月00日当天下午8点，特警队进入该屋。当他们进去时，子弹从楼上的天花板穿过天花板如雨点般落在他们身上。特警队在撤退时还击。

那天晚上晚些时候，天黑后，一架直升机飞过房子上空，向屋顶投下白磷照明弹。房子着火了，火焰冲到一百英尺高的地方。子弹从着火的房子里穿过墙壁射来——鲍勃还在开火！当蛞蝓在夜空中呼啸而过，将头顶上的树木劈开时，特工们一直保持低调。

然后一切都静止了。

第二天早上，他们在房子烧焦的废墟中发现了一具被烧得面目全非的尸体。牙科记录确定这是鲍勃·马修斯的牙齿。[340]同上，第260-261页。
（单数，第 251-253 页。）

“鲍勃是一个非常热情的年轻人，”皮尔斯告诉我，“与我今天在美国看到的许多弱者截然不同。如果鲍勃看到需要干预或采取行动的情况，他会跳起来做某事，而其他人只会谈论它。如今，典型的男性可能会与他的朋友讨论应该做什么，比如向政府做什么。他甚至可能表达他的愤怒。但他不会 do 任何事物。他不会做一百、两百、一千年前任何受人尊敬的白人男性会做的事情。但鲍勃·马修斯在这方面有所不同。他是一个认真的人，对待事情很认真。这是他给我留下的深刻印象，让我尊敬他并记住他。这并不是说他是一位伟大的思想家——他更像是一位活动家。他分发传单并组织诸如此类的事情。

“他是全国联盟成员，并于 1983 年参加了我们在华盛顿举行的全国会议。几年来，鲍勃一直在他所在的地区分发传单和书籍并进行组织活动。与他共事的许多人——卡车司机、森林工人、农民——的经济状况相当严峻。许多农场被收回，许多人失业，鲍勃认为采取更严厉行动的时候到了。他没有意识到他之前所做的事情正在产生很大的影响。鲍勃是一个非常沮丧和缺乏耐心的年轻人。他在我们的会议上发表了讲话。我不认为这是一次熟练的演讲，但它是发自内心的。

“鲍勃在大会上发表演讲后，我和他聚在一起说，‘鲍勃，你的演讲非常好。但不要被这样的事实所误导，你周围的太平洋西北地区的人们似乎比全国其他地区更具革命情绪，因此行动迟缓。”看，他的想法是，如果他开始做某事，他可以提供一个其他人会效仿的榜样。这个雅利安民族组织位于爱达荷州海登湖附近，他访问了那里并招募了其中一些人，他还从他居住的华盛顿州周围招募了一些人。我想他在巅峰时期大约有二十个人参与其中，尽管其中可能有八九个人是他的行动的核心成员。他们开始抢劫银行、抢劫装甲车等等。天哪，他们所做的事情真是令人惊叹！

“鲍勃不仅撞倒了银行等，而且他和他的团队还在全国各地为他们的革命军队招募人员。他认为他的努力可以滚雪球。方法是这样的：亚特兰大说，他们来到某个城市，租了一套房子，在房子里的几张桌子上摆满了他们最近抢劫银行的钱，以及一些 特纳日记， 还有手榴弹、机枪以及他们拥有的一切东西。他们有一份该地区所谓的爱国者名单——有时在以前的城镇他们会问，‘我们接下来要去亚特兰大，你知道有谁对我们来说是一个好的前景吗？这样他们就会得到一份姓名和地址列表。鲍勃认为，当人们看到他们抢走的所有钱财和军事武器等时，他们会说，‘给我报名吧！我有三个朋友；让我给他们打电话并让他们过来！”

“所以鲍勃和他的团队会把名单上的人带到他们的安全屋，他们称之为安全屋——他们采用的中央情报局术语——然后他们会说，‘好吧，革命已经开始，你被选中了参加！'那家伙的眼睛会凸出来，他会看到桌子上摆满了钱和机关枪，通常会发生的事情是他会说，‘哦，太棒了，太棒了，革命已经开始了，是的。你们知道，我必须考虑一下这个问题，伙计们。让我回家和我妻子谈谈，我会立即回复你。并变焦！这家伙的屁股不会碰到他的衬衫，直到他和马修斯以及其他人之间拉开很大的距离。他回家后会打电话给所有他认识的人，然后说：“该死的，你知道我刚刚看到了什么吗？”他会很兴奋，他会谈论这件事，然后一切就结束了。他会表示同情等等，他并不是想把那些人惹恼，但他也不会冒险。

“鲍勃是如何能够坚持这么久的，我永远不会知道。他在波特兰一家汽车旅馆内与联邦调查局发生枪战，幸免于难——他的手被铅弹击中。导致他垮台的原因是他涉足伪造货币[一项由 特纳日记’命令也是如此]，他的小组中的一名成员在路过时被抓住，然后转身。”

“汤姆·马丁内斯。”

“就是那个。马丁内斯曾是国家联盟的成员。那是鲍勃第一次和他在一起的地方。鲍勃有一些优秀的士兵愿意追随他，并尽其所能地做他告诉他们的事情，但他也有一些像马丁内斯这样有缺陷的人。我不得不把他赶出联盟。发生的事情是，马丁内斯在费城有一个朋友，名叫霍华德·布朗。那里的联盟部队领导者是艾伦·巴洛（Alan Balogh），基本上是一个强壮的好家伙。巴洛会做一些事情，比如在电线杆上贴联盟标语牌，他会打掉任何在他做这件事时给他带来不愉快的人。有时这会导致法律上的困难，有一次当巴洛被罚款五百美元时，我在我们的一次全国代表大会上募集了一笔捐款来支付他的罚款。

“嗯，第二年马丁内斯和布朗希望我为他们收集善款，因为他们因扰乱治安行为而被罚款。他们在一家餐馆里大声谈论黑鬼，一些自由派白人妇女对此表示反对，并对他们说了一些政治上正确的言论，马丁内斯、布朗和那个女人发生了争执。经理让马丁内斯和布朗离开，他们留下了很多言语和威胁。经理报了警，警察将他们带走，并以扰乱治安罪逮捕了他们。

“我认为他们两人的判断力很差，而且他们的行为方式是我不希望联盟成员看到的。另外，我以前和马丁内斯也遇到过类似的问题。在下一次年会上，马丁内斯站起来说，既然我去年就为同样的事情进行了募捐，我应该再做一次。

“我解释了去年的情况和今年的区别。在这种情况下，他们两个并没有做出任何有用的事情，他们是在敌方领土上等等，只是他们判断力差，行为不好。而去年，巴洛做了一件合理的事情，将我们的海报张贴在其他人可以看到的地方，这是我鼓励的一项好活动，他只是将质问者殴打作为最后的手段。

“马丁内斯一直喝酒到凌晨 4:00，一直在说我对街上的普通工人没有任何同情心，然后他就四处走动，当着自己的面收集了一些东西。我所说的不想要它。所以我把他赶了出去。

“不管怎样，马丁内斯拿了一堆假币，在费城买了一些啤酒。钱不是特别好，店里的店员报了警，当他——愚蠢、愚蠢、愚蠢——第二天晚上又回到同一个地方去买更多啤酒时，他们抓住了他。马丁内斯发现自己遇到了麻烦，于是将马修斯扔给他们以拯救自己。

“后来我和鲍勃的遗孀黛比谈过，我告诉她我感到有些责任。鲍勃显然非常喜欢 特纳日记，很明显，他从书中汲取了很多元素，包括他做事的方式和使用的术语等等。我告诉她，我已经告诉鲍勃，我认为这个国家没有革命情绪，并敦促他不要这样做，但也许我可以说得更好。她说我告诉鲍勃的话不会有任何影响。他已经下定决心，这就是他要做的事，而且他认为自己无法幸存。”

“鲍勃显然受到了我的书的启发，这件事发生后给我带来了一个大问题。秘密警察多年来一直在我的脖子上。他们遍布整个县，他们真的很想把我抓起来。我以为我会被起诉，并与史密斯堡的其他人一起受审。”

（1987 年，司法部对 XNUMX 名参与白人种族主义团体和活动的个人提出煽动罪指控。起诉书指控他们密谋推翻美国政府。经过一百多名证人和数千页文件的漫长审判，所有被告都被无罪释放。毫无疑问，皮尔斯的担忧不仅涉及定罪和入狱的可能性，还涉及审判所需的时间和精力，以及无论结果如何，如果不击垮他，他都会耗尽精力的可能性财务上。[341]约翰·乔治和莱尔德·威尔科克斯， 纳粹分子、共产党人、三K党成员和其他边缘人士 （纽约州布法罗：普罗米修斯图书，1992 年），第 410 页。 XNUMX.)

“你对鲍勃·马修斯有什么印象？”

“嗯，这是他的魅力和领导能力。但对我来说最重要的是鲍勃是一个非常诚实和真诚的人。如果你要进行一场革命，他是你非常需要的人。一个完全奉献的人，一个不假思索地将自己的生命置于危险之中的人，一个会不惜一切代价的人，无论是用机关枪扫射一群人还是走进死亡之门。鲍勃已经做好了准备，并不是因为他是一个寻求刺激的人或者想要关注或赞扬。他已经准备好这样做了，因为这需要完成。”

“1985 年，你从华盛顿特区搬到了西弗吉尼亚州的这个偏远地区，”我对皮尔斯说。 “是什么促成了这一举动？”

“我在华盛顿生活了十八年，这对我来说很重要，”皮尔斯回答道。 “我最终决定我不是城市人。一方面，我不喜欢人群。他们让我紧张。现在，我什至不喜欢去刘易斯堡（距离他在西弗吉尼亚州居住的地方四十英里的一个小镇）购物。我更喜欢身边只有几个我认识和信任的人。我想心理学家给它起了个名字，把它贴上某种神经症的标签，但我不认为这真的那么不常见或不自然。在这个国家的发展过程中，许多人如果在一英里范围内有邻居，就会开始感到局促，于是他们向西迁移。我只是想要我周围有一些空间，一些隐私。另外我不喜欢噪音，也不喜欢污染。我不想起床穿上西装打领带开车去某个地方。事实上，我对华盛顿的黑人有点痴迷。看到他们到处都是，我的反应非常消极。我在华盛顿做了一些事情，如果我被抓住的话，我的余生就会被关进监狱。所以我想我最好离开这个小镇，我做到了。”

“当你说你在华盛顿做了一些会让你余生入狱的事情时，这只是一种比喻吗？”

“不，我做了一些疯狂的事情。我写 Hunter [他的小说，1983 年开始创作，1989 年出版] 讲述了奥斯卡·耶格尔在做什么以及他为什么这么做。[342]安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯 饰） Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。 [耶格尔杀害异族夫妇和犹太人。] 耶格尔参与了所谓的恐怖活动，但他这样做主要是出于治疗原因。当他开始驱逐混血夫妇时，他并没有想到会给社会带来巨大的变化。只是如果他不做点什么来反对他所看到的周围发生的事情，他就无法忍受自己。我没有做他所做的事，但我做了一些不明智的事情。华盛顿是一个非常国际化的城市，充满政府精神。我就被淹没在那个该死的环境里了。我讨厌它。我感到一种绝望，我做出了反应。如果我留下来，我可能会被抓住。但幸运的是我能够逃离那里。”

我从来不知道皮尔斯在华盛顿做了什么，如果有的话，那会给他带来麻烦。还有一次，他简短地提到了他在华盛顿的最后时光所感受到的一种“黑暗”，并说如果他留下来，他们会发现他炸毁了一些东西，并将他关进监狱。出于显而易见的原因，他不打算详细介绍他在华盛顿所做的事情，而且为了我们的关系和我对这本书的总体目标，我认为进行调查式和对抗性的交流是不明智的和他一起讨论一些无论如何都不会产生结果的事情。所以当他改变讨论焦点时我也跟着他。

“让我回到我来到西弗吉尼亚州的个人动机，”皮尔斯说。 “除了想要拥有一些空间和受够了华盛顿之外，还有一些事情。这是宇宙神论社区的理念。我想看看我们是否可以为家庭、孩子以及一般人创造一个新的、更好的环境。我以为人们会和我一起来这里，或者即使不是这样，他们也会稍后一起来。我认为这样一个好地方会吸引那些想成为其中一部分的人加入联盟。但事实证明，世界其他地方并没有像我一样准备好搬迁，所以这里的人口仍然很少。对我来说，这是一个理想的环境。我从来没有像现在这样喜欢过任何地方，而且我住过全国各地——弗吉尼亚州、佐治亚州、德克萨斯州、加利福尼亚州、科罗拉多州、俄勒冈州和康涅狄格州。但显然我的观点只是少数人的观点。显然，城市生活对很多人都有吸引力，但对我却没有吸引力。”

“除了想要生活在种族和文化同质的环境中，以及你自己喜欢人少、靠近土地的生活之外，你是否普遍反对城市生活？”

“我确实认为城市的发展方式有些不健康。它们变得过于拥挤和污染，而且在很多方面都变得效率低下。当我在华盛顿设有办公室、我和妻子住在弗雷德里克斯堡（她在那里教书）时，我尝试每天通勤。但我早上和晚上一个半小时都在血腥的交通中度过，我的性格不太适应。我有路怒症，我想这就是所谓的——真的很恼火。我知道有些人比我更能适应这种情况，但我仍然认为人们每天在交通堵塞中浪费三个小时是不健康的。

“从我还是个孩子的时候起，城市就发生了变化，我也发生了变化，我想，如果我没有改变自己的方式，城市的不同之处现在对我的影响会更大。例如，1951 年前，1955 年至 XNUMX 年，当我在莱斯大学读本科时，休斯顿主要是一座白人城市。有黑人和墨西哥人，但他们是分开的。白人和非白人社区之间的互动受到监管。所以你有一个白人社会。白人社区基本上可以自行运作。黑人音乐和黑人犯罪以及其他一切并没有侵入白人社会。我们所做的一切不好的、错误的、堕落的事情都是我们自己的，而不是别人的。尽管我认为这并不完全正确——犹太人刚刚开始涉足电视和音乐产业。但基本上，至少在我的记忆中，那时的城市生活还不算太糟糕。

“我住在莱斯大学校园附近的一套公寓里，周围的社区都是白人，体面，居民都是正常健康的人。没有毒品，孩子们也没有生闷气和反抗。未来，革命后，我们需要创建更健康的城市，人们可以在这里一起工作并相互交流，而不会出现城市生活带来的拥堵、污染和其他垃圾。”

此时我想起了杰克·伦敦的一本小说，我知道皮尔斯读过这本小说， 月亮谷 [343]杰克伦敦 月亮谷 （圣巴巴拉：Peregrine，1975 年，最初出版于 1913 年）。. 它描绘了一对年轻夫妇摆脱肮脏的城市生活的故事。他们徒步寻找他们在地球上的位置，他们的土地。这本书描绘了一种基于亲近土壤和拒绝城市价值观和问题的生活方式的积极画面。故事发生在加利福尼亚州北部，描绘了一个不像今天那么拥挤的地方，那里的自然环境仍然对人们的情感产生主要影响。当我读到它时，我想起了皮尔斯自己的西弗吉尼亚之旅。我问皮尔斯：“你的信息是不是要传达给一对刚刚起步的年轻夫妇，他们应该像比利和撒克逊[书中的中心人物，一对年轻的已婚夫妇]那样散步？ 月亮谷——放弃试图应对或隔离现代城市生活中令人疏远和痛苦的方面，而只是去某个地方，把一切抛在脑后？”

“我不像旧约先知那样告诉人们离开城市或面对上帝的愤怒，”皮尔斯回答道。 “我知道人们与他们的工作息息相关。而且城市里的人们之间可以有非常健康的交流。我记得住在休斯敦和帕萨迪纳大学附近时所受到的刺激。另外，许多人依赖城市的支持结构，真的不知道如何为自己做事，也确实对学习不感兴趣。除此之外，还有一些人只是喜欢城市生活。我没有必要告诉一个在城市长大、认同我们的理念、但热爱城市生活的人滚蛋，离开城市。他不会为了一件事而这样做，如果他这样做了，他会很痛苦。

“我认为这更重要的是让城市再次变得宜居，就像以前一样。我们忘记了，城市并不总是像今天这样危险、疏远的地方。哦，我希望联盟的普通成员不要那么软弱和依赖。我希望看到更多一些坚韧、自力更生的人。一方面，我认为拥有这样的人对我们的未来很重要。我们需要能够应对在突然的、创伤性的剧变中生存下来的挑战。但我不会告诉人们去寻找他们的“月亮谷”。

“不过，自工业革命以来人们发展成为经济农奴的方式确实让我感到恼火。我有一种感觉，五百年前的经济发展在养家糊口方面更好，而且更理智，更符合人类的整体需要。有些人是农民，有些人住在乡村和城镇，有些人是市民和工匠，他们之间存在着健康的相互依存关系。例如，如果有人制作鞋子，他就有自己的车间和陈列室，顾客可以进来查看他们可以获得的靴子类型，以及可以在哪里测量和安装他为他们制作的靴子。鞋匠住在他的店楼上，他的全家都参与了这项工作，甚至包括每天晚上从地板上捡起皮革碎片并扫出去的三岁孩子。

“有时候，这些企业所需的技能是孩子无法从父亲那里自然学到的，所以他会向大师拜师，学习小提琴制作之类的东西。这是一个合理的体系：设立不同的行业和级别——学徒、熟练工和大师——以及行会来规范事物。行会维护其贸易或工艺的标准。如果一个人被发现作弊或生产伪劣产品，他就会被赶出行会，那样的话他还不如割断自己的喉咙。

“但随着工业革命的到来，有些企业实际上需要人力机器来从地下挖煤或照料纺纱机或其他任何东西。有些人从这个系统中获得了奢侈的机会，有机会消费各种商品等等。但对于大多数人来说，生活质量下降了。在我看来，社会的整体质量也在下降。”

结果，皮尔斯只身前往西弗吉尼亚州的乡村。皮尔斯告诉我，他的第二任妻子伊丽莎白不想搬到这个国家这个没有自来水的荒野地区，并在一辆二手拖车里过着自己的生活。皮尔斯与帕特里夏的第一次婚姻在结婚二十五年后于 1982 年结束，同年他与伊丽莎白结婚。至于他的第一次婚姻，皮尔斯说帕特里夏想要“正常的生活，有家具和一切”，但她不会和他在一起。他们只在周末在他们居住的弗吉尼亚州弗雷德里克斯堡见面。皮尔斯本周一直待在他位于阿灵顿的国家联盟办公室。

“在 1970 世纪 80 年代后期和 XNUMX 年代最初几年，我与妻子 [帕特里夏] 疏远，直到我们离婚，”皮尔斯告诉我。 “我在华盛顿一直熬夜。我因为（与国家联盟有关的）工作压力太大，不想花时间上下班，所以我就睡在办公室的沙发上，自己在那里解决饭菜，并试图继续下去。我真的是紧紧抓住我的指甲。我无法支付账单。我只得让事情继续下去。我觉得我所做的事情不仅重要，而且我的一生都与此息息相关，如果我不能让联盟取得成功，我个人就会失败。我真的很努力。”

皮尔斯说，他妻子在她任教的大学里的同事会因为某种原因在报纸上看到他的名字，并对她说：“那是你的丈夫吗？他疯了吗？这对她来说很困难。皮尔斯说，为了公正地对待他正在做的工作，他必须接受采访并做一些会引起骚动的事情，他的名字会出现在媒体上，他不想觉得自己应该这样做。为了避免妻子不舒服，请不要做任何事情。于是他们各走各的路。皮尔斯没有透露离婚前与伊丽莎白的关系（伊丽莎白在他的阿灵顿办公室工作）是否是他与帕特里夏婚姻破裂的促成因素。

皮尔斯告诉我，搬到西弗吉尼亚州后他感到非常孤独。当他到达后不久就失去了他的猫，这让他更加孤独。但他一直忙着布置这个地方，把活动房屋搬到这里，打一口井，安装化粪池系统。为了寻找陪伴，他开始播放交友广告来结识一位女性。

“我在 华盛顿，一本华而不实的雅皮士杂志，”皮尔斯说，“我在其中描述了自己，一位五十二岁的前大学教授，现在住在西弗吉尼亚州山区的作家，需要一个女人等等，我谈到一些关于我个人的喜好。我收到了来自职业女性——女商人、律师等的大量回复。其中一封来自一位名叫凯西的女士。她是来自阿肯色州的盎格鲁撒克逊人。她在普林斯顿大学获得博士学位，并成为耶鲁大学法国文学教授。在耶鲁大学期间，她嫁给了哥伦比亚大学的一位数学教授。婚姻没有成功，她独自一人留在纽约，没有工作。她获得了法律学位，并在华盛顿证券交易委员会担任律师。

“凯西是一个很有魅力的女人，而且有点好色，所以我们在身体方面很合得来。但她酗酒，每天吸两到三包烟。她每周都会去看一次心理治疗师，还会去看催眠师，因为她有偏头痛。我告诉她，你之所以会偏头痛、去看治疗师、酗酒、抽烟，是因为你生活在一种可怕的、不自然的环境中。我告诉她，女人不应该成为律师。这是一种逃避。这是一个男人的职业。除此之外，你一个人生活在华盛顿特区这个狗咬狗的城市里，那里不适合女人居住。你需要离开那里。我说，和我一起去西弗吉尼亚州呆几个星期，你就会看到不同。

“嗯，这让她很生气。她感染了所有这些女权主义的废话。当我开始和她谈论想法时，我们的关系就被破坏了。”

尽管与凯西的关系并不顺利，但他们与奥尔加·斯克尔莱茨（Olga Skerlecz）的关系却很顺利。奥尔加·斯克尔莱茨是一位音乐家，也是来自匈牙利的新移民，住在康涅狄格州。皮尔斯前往康涅狄格州会见奥尔加。他们相处融洽，第二年，即 1986 年，奥尔加作为皮尔斯的妻子来到西弗吉尼亚州与皮尔斯一起生活。这段婚姻维持了四年。

发表于1989年， Hunter 这是皮尔斯的第二部小说，第一部当然是 特纳日记.[344]安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯 饰） Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。 至此， Hunter 这也是皮尔斯的最后一部小说——此后他只写非小说类作品。与 特纳日记，皮尔斯写道 Hunter 与安德鲁·麦克唐纳 (Andrew Macdonald) 的笔名相同，与他的第一部小说一样，皮尔斯写这本书从来都不是秘密。

皮尔斯发表 Hunter 通过他自己的渠道“国家先锋图书”。无论他愿意做什么，采取相当于自我出版的路线 Hunter 实际上，这是他出版这本书的唯一方法。内容为 Hunter大多数人会认为它带有种族主义、反犹太主义和令人无法接受的暴力色彩，这使得它极不可能被通过主要连锁书店发行书籍的主流商业出版社选中。自从 Hunter 如果皮尔斯在书中所提出的问题是作为一种通俗而非学术的处理方式而写的，那么学术出版商——纽约大学出版社、哈佛大学出版社等等——就会仅仅因为这一点而拒绝它。 特纳日记 曾一度由商业出版商出版，但那是由于一个特殊的情况：这本书与俄克拉荷马城爆炸案有联系。至于发行方面，Delta Press 一直在销售吸引军事爱好者和生存主义者的书籍。 Hunter 在枪支展上以及通过目录和杂志广告 兵痞 等等。近年来互联网的发展极大地增加了皮尔斯所写的这类书籍的发行可能性。通过邮件列表和聊天热线，个人可以相互告知未公开的书籍的存在，并且还有在线图书订购服务：amazon.com 和 bn.com（Barnes & Noble）都提供在线图书订购服务。 Hunter 以及 特纳日记 可用。

Hunter 影片开始，奥斯卡·耶格尔坐在他的棕褐色福特轿车中，该轿车停在华盛顿特区的一个购物中心停车场。耶格尔正在汽车收音机上听他最喜欢的舒伯特奏鸣曲。尽管夜晚的空气很冷，但他的手心却是汗湿的，汗水顺着脸颊滚落。我们被告知他正在等待某件事，但我们不知道那是什么。[345]同上，第。 1。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

奥斯卡·耶格尔是一位四十岁的高个子男人。他有一头金色的头发，深陷的灰色眼睛，五官崎岖，额头又高又光滑，左脸颊上有一条滑雪事故留下的细疤痕。[346]同上，第。 8。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。） 他的职业是咨询工程师，爱好是修补匠和发明家。他在越南驾驶 F4 战斗机。 1976 年离开空军后，他回到科罗拉多大学（皮尔斯本人就读的学校）上学，并获得了电气工程和计算机科学的研究生学位。四年前，他与五角大楼签订了一系列设计合同来到华盛顿。[347]同上，第。 4。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

二十分钟后，一辆棕色面包车驶进停车场。司机是一名黑人男性。乘客座位上坐着一名白人女性。他们下了车，站得很近，在耶格尔看来，他们正在争论。他的等待结束了。他开车朝这对夫妇驶去，直到他们距离他打开的窗户大约八英尺。他们停下手中的事情，看着他。他们的目光与他的目光相遇。耶格尔动作流畅，把手伸到旁边座位上的毯子下面，把步枪举到肩上。他将左肘抵在门上，射出两枪。他看到这对夫妇的头骨——先是一个，然后是另一个——爆炸成骨头碎片、脑组织和血液。

耶格尔感到平静。他开车走了。他停下车，回头看了一眼货车。男子的尸体倒在路面上。女子的尸体被货车遮住了。回家的路上，耶格尔感受到了冰冷的平静。直到他把车停进车库，进屋收起外套后，他的内心才充满了欣喜和满足，就像过去三周里他处决的其他五起跨种族夫妇一样。[348]同上，p。 2-3。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

耶格尔为什么要这么做？怎么会变成这样——在停车场杀害异族情侣？我们被告知，这是关于种族的，耶格尔的种族，白人种族。耶格尔在越南的经历让他对自己的人民有了更深的认识。他所在部队的所有飞行员都是白人，是经过严格挑选的群体，精英。耶格尔将他们与高度整合的美国地面部队中的黑人进行了对比。他注意到的差异之一是两个种族的自豪感的含义。对于他认识的白人飞行员来说，自豪本质上意味着基于自己的成就的自尊，尤其是对自己的掌控的成就。它表现为个人尊严和荣誉的光环。相比之下，他对黑人的骄傲主要意味着影响某种风格、某种表现自己和与他人相处的方式。对他们来说，骄傲表现为一种趾高气扬的品质，一种傲慢无礼的态度，以及对别人（尤其是“怀蒂”）起哄的决心。对于黑人来说，骄傲主要是一种社会现象。它与人际关系有关，而对于白人来说，它更多的是一种私人的、内在的东西。

耶格尔个人并不喜欢他所有的白人飞行员同伴。有些人他不太尊重。但尽管如此，他还是对他们有一种亲切感，一种自然的共同体感。从根本上来说，他理解他们，他们也理解他。尽管他们存在个体差异，但他可以和他们一起工作、一起玩耍，并且感觉很好。尽管他在其中一些人身上看到了弱点、愚蠢和卑鄙，但他的白人同志对他来说就是“我们”。他们是他的人。

受军队观察和经历的启发，耶格尔在退伍并进入研究生院后更深入地研究了种族现象。他读了很多关于这个主题的书——不是在课程中，而是自己阅读，试图理解他日益增长的种族意识，并将其置于历史的角度。他的研究和反思使他得出这样的结论：他对黑人的仇外心理不仅仅是对他们与他之间表面外表差异或生活方式差异的反应。耶格尔认为，种族之间的差异远不止于此。尽管他知道他应该相信什么，但事实是黑人和白人之间存在先天的差异。两个种族的振动或精神有着根本的不同。他们有着不同的种族灵魂。简而言之，它们作为存在的根源不同，这体现在显着的身体、心理和行为差异上。

耶格尔开始从种族的角度看待历史。他总结道，历史不仅仅是对一系列事件、日期和名字的描述。它记录了不同类型的人（种族和族裔群体）的发展和互动。这就是历史最根本、最有意义的意义。他认为，如果考虑到不同类型的人的身体和心理特征，一个人对历史的理解就会更加丰富。如果从种族角度来调查那场战争及其后果，就能更好地理解越南时代以及此后发生的事情的意义。

从种族角度看待事物向耶格尔提出了这样的问题：越南战争以及此后发生的事件对他的人民——白人——产生了何种影响。从这个角度来看，他清楚地意识到，过去几十年发生的事情对白人产生了负面的、破坏性的影响。白人正在迷失方向。他们变得更加颓废，越来越不令人钦佩，越来越不自我，越来越不光荣，越来越不认识自己作为一个民族，越来越弱小，越来越没有能力作为一个种族生存和发展。造成这种情况的因素是显而易见的：政府领导层的虚伪、动机隐秘、不负责任和不道德；民权和女权主义革命的影响；媒体和学校的多元文化宣讲；越来越多异族情侣的出现；以及白人年轻人滥用毒品现象的增加。所有这些事情都破坏了白人传统、白人的正直和尊严、白人的种族承诺以及白人之间的团结程度。

在耶格尔看来，人们总是从如何影响一个或另一个群体（某个国家、政党、经济阶层或少数群体，或者可能是女性）的角度来看待事物。他现在注意到，一个从未被单独挑选出来引起注意的群体是白人。而这正是他正在做的事情，而他对所看到的感到厌恶。

接下来的问题就变成了他将如何应对他的种族发生的事情。他不是一个政客，也不是那种会成为小册子作者的人。他是一个寡言少语、实干的人；他意识到，他想要采取的行动非常直接、立即，而且大部分都是暴力的。这就是他内心想要出去的东西。这就是寻求释放的压力。

耶格尔沿着这些思路思考了几种可能性。他考虑利用自己的电子专业知识，用盗版发射机闯入商业广播，并传达自己关于白人遭遇的信息。他考虑租一架飞机，在国会开会时轰炸它。但他出于三个原因决定杀害异族夫妇。首先，它们象征着对他的种族最具威胁的东西——白血的污染。其次，它们对他个人来说具有治疗价值。它们具有宣泄作用。他们减轻了他感受到的压力。他们让他平静下来，心情也好了起来。反抗当权者——政客、媒体老板，以及所有那些促进、允许或从中获利的人——种族的毁灭，感觉很好。最后，他所做的事情很容易被其他人复制。任何人都可以拿起枪，射杀街上一对异性恋的情侣。[349]同上，第8-12页。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

正如读完皮尔斯的第一部小说后所预料的那样 特纳日记，奥斯卡刚刚对这些跨种族情侣的暗杀事件感到热身。大量的死亡和破坏即将到来。首先有 “华盛顿邮报” 专栏作家大卫·雅各布斯（David Jacobs）写道，杀害这些混血夫妇是一名性沮丧的白人男性所为。雅各布斯说，白人男性对黑人男性的性能力以及白人女性对黑人男性的吸引力感到不满。他向读者指出，过去几年，南方白人对黑人的私刑很大程度上是出于性嫉妒。雅各布斯说，只要还有白人，白人种族主义就会继续成为一种巨大的罪恶，而政府能做的最好的事情就是通过鼓励更多的种族通婚来加速这一天的到来。雅各布斯写道，对异族夫妇的税收减免将是朝着这个方向迈出的良好一步。

雅各布斯开始在他的公寓大楼无人看管的地下停车场钻进他的车。他永远不知道是什么击中了他。[350]同上，p。 24-25。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

然后是国会议员霍洛维茨，他发誓要启动国会对这起杀戮事件的调查。当霍洛维茨站在小便池前时，奥斯卡来到他身后，用绞刑架套住他的头，将他勒死。

此时，奥斯卡遇到了哈利·凯勒，他是一位前大学教师，为一个名为“国家联盟”的组织工作。哈利向奥斯卡讲述全国联盟：

我们的事业是为我们的种族创造一个安全和进步的未来。有一天，我们想要一个白色世界——一个有自我意识和使命的白色世界；一个受优生原则支配的世界；在这个世界里，家庭和政府的目标都是我们种族的向上繁衍；一个更清洁、更绿色的世界，人口更少但更好，生活更接近自然；在这个世界里，质量再次主宰数量，人们的生活有了目标，美丽、卓越和荣誉再次变得有意义和希望。

我们的种族正面临灭亡的危险，部分是因为我们在同一生态位中被其他种族淘汰，部分是因为我们正在混血致死……当游戏中的所有竞争者都为生存和生存而奋斗时，进步就会到来。适合获胜。我们的种族并没有陷入困境。它躺着死去。我们的工作就是唤醒它。几时 试图 为了生存，它会双手反绑在背后鞭打所有其他种族……我们首先要通过唤醒它并点燃其天生的斗志来确保我们种族的生存，然后我们要重新定位它的价值观和它看待事物的方式，以便努力不断完善自己……[351]同上，第。 40。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

哈利告诉奥斯卡，目前全国联盟的努力是教育性的，而不是政治性的。 “我们正在努力提高人们对种族问题的意识，”他告诉奥斯卡，“然后激励和指导那些我们对其意识有影响的人。”他向奥斯卡讲述了国家联盟出版的材料以及他建造的视频工作室。他告诉奥斯卡，联盟的大多数成员都是专业人士。

哈利接着告诉奥斯卡，联盟的主要对手是犹太人：

他们中的一些人可能看起来是白人，但没有一个有种族意识的犹太人认为自己是白人，而犹太人是地球上最具种族意识的民族，遥遥领先。他们称自己的敌人——包括任何他们无法控制的人——“新纳粹分子”，因为他们投入了大量的努力，让这个标签成为一种耻辱。他们在这个词上投入了沉重的情感和感觉，因此大多数人在没有清楚地理解它的含义的情况下对这个词做出消极的反应。[352]同上，第。 41。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

哈利的反犹太主义让奥斯卡感到不舒服。他的斗争是反对种族混合，他不明白犹太人与此有什么关系。当然，随着时间的推移，他会认识到自己的想法是错误的。

在这次交流中，与奥斯卡和哈利在一起的是阿德莱德，她成为了奥斯卡的爱人。阿德莱德二十三岁，比奥斯卡小十七岁。几个月前，奥斯卡在一位军友的五角大楼办公室里遇见了她，她当时在那里担任文职分析员。[353]同上，第。 14。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。） 阿德莱德在爱荷华州的一个小镇长大，来华盛顿一年多了。奥斯卡对她躺在床上熟睡的裸体感到惊讶：

她是一个美丽的女人，是他（奥斯卡）见过的最美丽的女人之一，修长、苗条、柔软，皮肤如丝绸般光滑，完美的大腿上长满了茂盛的淡红色灌木丛，平坦的腹部，雄伟的乳房，优美的脖颈，超长的长度，一张脸，那么可爱，那么纯洁，那么孩子气般的平静和天真，看着它轻轻地依偎在枕头里，半掩在她那乱糟糟的金红色长发中，让他心痛不已当他在沙漠中观看异常壮观的日落或在山中徒步旅行时看到特别壮丽的景色时，他会感到心痛。[354]同上，第。 15。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

阿德莱德将她的外表吸引力与同样吸引人的个人举止结合在一起：她“聪明、慷慨、乐于助人，而且总是开朗”。[355]同上，第。 14。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

书中，阿德基本上都是支持奥斯卡的。书中的人物处理重大问题并使事情发生。奥斯卡说，男性和女性之间存在身体和心理上的差异，这是进化条件下产生的，而女权主义者及其支持者没有考虑到这些现实。奥斯卡回忆说，回到越南时，人们认为女性在战斗中不驾驶军用飞机的唯一原因是社会思想和实践的压抑影响。但他坚信，无论女性的反应有多快，协调性有多好，视力有多敏锐，她都不会像男性那样成为一名优秀的战斗机飞行员。她所缺乏的是战斗的本能。战斗并不是她天生的角色。奥斯卡认为，战斗荷尔蒙缺失了，与生俱来的战斗微技能在数百万年的物种进化过程中得到了精心调整，在此期间，男性是猎人和战士，女性是养育者。[356]同上，第。 50。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

奥斯卡的结论是，虽然阿德莱德聪明、机智、博览群书，她的智慧使她成为一个特别好的伴侣，但她的思维方式与他不同。一方面，她的精神世界更小，视野更近。对她来说，真实的是此时此地。过去和未来，就像遥远的风景，对她来说已经不那么感兴趣了。阿德莱德在有限的项目上是一位优秀、务实的工作者，但绘制世界历史景观并制定改造计划对她来说似乎不现实。

阿德莱德并不是一个泛泛而谈的人。她的注意力集中在树木上，而不是森林上。她将人视为个体。当然，奥斯卡也是如此，但他也将人们视为更大类别的成员。他认为他们是他们的种族、他们的社会阶层、他们的宗教、他们的利益集团的代表。耶格尔认为，要了解一个人，就必须考虑他的根源在哪里以及他认同谁，而不仅仅是考虑他的个人特质。[357]同上，第。 51。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

阿德莱德作为女性处理事情的方式解释了为什么当一对异族夫妇被谋杀时，她看到的是两个人被谋杀，而不是对异族通婚的打击。她的反应对她来说很自然，很女性化。奥斯卡认为，可以让阿德莱德接受他的意识形态信仰，甚至批准他正在做的事情，但她的基本本性是私密、适应性和和平，而他的基本本性是公开、变革和暴力，并且与她打交道时必须考虑到这一点。

奥斯卡告诉阿德莱德，他想与这个国家的问题作斗争：“种族混合的增长，非白人移民大量涌入城市，政客日益明显的不诚实和缺乏责任感，破坏性的偏见新闻和娱乐媒体、国家士气崩溃、各地纪律和标准衰退，以及日益减少的白人多数群体丧失种族或文化认同感。”[358]同上，第。 54。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。） 她回答道：“那里有很多污垢，我们无法改变这一点。但我们可以保持自己的生活清洁，也可以为我们的孩子创造清洁的生活。这就是我们能做的一切。”[359]同上，第。 55。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。） 奥斯卡明白她在说什么，也明白她为什么会有这样的感觉，但他知道她处理这种情况的方式不是他的方式，如果他是真正的男人，就不是男人的方式。

就阿德莱德而言，她同情奥斯卡的态度，尽管她不像奥斯卡那样愿意参与所有的调查、分析和思考。她对大学里所有好色的黑人都感到厌烦，校园环境更感兴趣的是帮助她克服所谓的种族主义倾向，而不是让她过上她想要的生活。和她自己选择的人。她说校园里的女权主义者没有多大帮助。她认为，无论他们是否意识到，他们中的大多数人都对自己是女性而不是男性感到愤怒。他们发起反对强奸的运动——其中大部分是黑人男性强迫自己对白人女性进行强奸——他们通常称之为约会强奸——但她怀疑，他们真正抗议的是，他们处于社会底层，而不是顶层。 “只要有一个好人在上面，我一直很高兴处于底层，所以我无法真正理解他们。”[360]同上，第。 53。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

奥斯卡（和皮尔斯）对女性的矛盾心理体现在奥斯卡对他从与阿德莱德的关系中得到什么的看法上。一方面，和阿德莱德一起生活确实缓解了他之前的不安和不安。由于每顿饭都感受到她的笑声和优雅，他现在有了更积极的态度。当他上床睡觉时，感觉到她温暖的身体依偎在他身边，令人感到安慰。另一方面，他担心她会夺走他的优势，把他从他需要做的事情上拉开，削弱他的目标感和紧迫感，让他一直在做的事情显得不那么重要，分散他对真正重要的事情的注意力。他的生命。他是否变得更加谨慎、更加柔和、更加被动、对于无法忍受的事情更加宽容？[361]同上，第。 193。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。） 读到书中的这段话，让我想起了萧伯纳剧中的一段， 人与超人这部剧对皮尔斯年轻时产生了巨大的影响，当安娜对唐璜说她想和他一起去天堂时，他回答说他会找到自己的路，而且他不会接受她的路线。

事实证明，阿德莱德并没有夺走奥斯卡的优势，因为他能够完成所谓的“世纪仇恨犯罪”：奥斯卡轰炸了一座正在主办反仇恨人民委员会会议的教堂。当晚在讲台上死于爆炸的人包括两名州长、三名国会议员、一名参议员、一名红衣主教、两名主教、一名著名的拉比、一名电视脱口秀主持人、两名好莱坞知名演员、一名广受好评的女权主义作家、一名同性恋权利组织、全国有色人种协进会主席以及犹太组织 B'nai B'rith 的领导人。四十一名观众和媒体也在爆炸中丧生。当我阅读皮尔斯对这场屠杀的描述时，我想象着他写下这些页面时脸上的微笑和眼中的光芒。如在 特纳日记书中详细介绍了炸弹的组成部分及其制造方法。[362]同上，第59-60页。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

“别动，耶格尔！联邦调查局！”[363]同上，第。 62。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。） 奥斯卡被抓了。对他来说一切都结束了，或者看起来是这样。持有 Smith and Wesson Airweight 38 Special 的经纪人是 William Ryan。瑞安五十多岁，看上去很壮实，比耶格尔矮大约四英寸，头发花白，眼睛是钢蓝色的。但令人惊讶的是，瑞恩对奥斯卡的所作所为表示同情，并且不会逮捕他。相反，他希望奥斯卡成为他的杀手，而他瑞安则设法成为一个名为公共安全委员会（类似于美国克格勃）的新机构的负责人，然后以此为基础，着手解决所面临的问题。美国。瑞安需要奥斯卡为他干脏活，因为以瑞安在体制内的地位和知名度以及他的个人情况（他有妻子和孩子），他无法自己做这件事。奥斯卡和瑞恩之间的这种安排为本书的其余部分奠定了叙事线索：奥斯卡在瑞恩的要求下击倒了人们并炸毁了东西，而与此同时瑞恩以他作为一个组织负责人的官方身份打破了一些人的头，甚至更糟。联邦调查局反恐部门。

在所有的烟火中，瑞安仍然有时间向奥斯卡讲述犹太人正在发生的事情。他告诉奥斯卡，欧洲的犹太人通过货币和银行业行使控制权，而在这里，他们通过控制媒体（电视、好莱坞、音乐和出版业以及新闻传播渠道）来操纵公众舆论。瑞安告诉奥斯卡，犹太人通过这些手段进一步推进自己的利益，并在白人中“促进种族混合和其他形式的堕落”。[364]同上，第 70-71 页，第 190 页。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

瑞安一直忙于消灭竞争对手并照顾制造麻烦的人。特别是有几次，我认为瑞安和他的部队处理黑人骚乱者的方式似乎是皮尔斯发挥他的幻想并从中获得满足和宣泄的解脱的好例子。首先，瑞安所属机构的 16 名人员配备头盔、防弹衣和 MXNUMX 步枪，在他的直接监督下扫荡骚乱地区，炸毁门锁，射杀任何不立即响应命令的人。他们逮捕了四百名黑人，杀死了一百三人，打伤了另外两百人，并迅速平息了骚乱。在第二次事件中，为了应对黑人的抢劫和纵火，瑞安和他的手下乘坐直升机前往。电视直播了瑞安的袭击事件。皮尔斯描述了这一场景：“有一刻，电视上显示数百名黑人在下面的街道上，对着上面的直升机挑衅地挥舞着拳头，并高喊着脏话。然后人群中几乎瞬间爆发出一百道闪光，伴随着震耳欲聋的断断续续的爆炸声。之后所能看到的只是水平的黑人尸体，怪诞地散落在人行道上。”[365]同上，第。 203。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

皮尔斯可能在上演他的幻想的另一集是：当一群艾滋病抗议者在一位秘书离开办公室时向她泼洒感染艾滋病的血液时，她的丈夫用十二号霰弹枪将他们打飞，而警察则袖手旁观。方式。当一名同性恋发言人抗议警方未能做出回应时，他的办公室遭到燃烧弹袭击。然后，当一群同性恋者举着标语牌出现在市政厅抗议燃烧弹袭击时，街头工作人员将他们打得不省人事。[366]同上，第。 205。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

在此期间，全国联盟的哈里·凯勒继续向奥斯卡教授有关犹太威胁的课程，并继续强化奥斯卡已有的种族观点；奥斯卡就书中指定的主题做了一些演讲；一个新角色出现了，索尔·罗杰斯，前高中教师，现任联盟成员。此时，奥斯卡已经加入了联盟，他和哈利将索尔打造成联盟教义的强大电视传教士，以杰瑞·福尔韦尔或比利·格雷厄姆的基督教布道事工为幌子。不出所料，扫罗一有机会就会发表一些自己的演讲。 “你们年轻人，想想你们的父母和祖父母是什么样的。想想他们的外表和行为方式，然后为自己挑选一个外表和行为方式也如此的伴侣。” “谁会想到我们[人们]实际上开始为自己是白人而感到自豪，并对自己在欧洲的种族根源产生真正的兴趣。[367]同上，第208，210页。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）=

这是一个“教学和演讲”的角色。或者至少男人们是这样的——阿德莱德和哈利的妻子科琳不时地提出了自己的看法，但他们并不像男人们那样愿意登上领奖台。

哈利的课程包括：

• 这个社会正在进行一场竞争，看哪个群体的利益将脱颖而出，但许多白人还没有弄清楚这一点。哈利说：“其中包括那些认为被拉屎比拉屎更好的基督徒，以及反对任何主流群体的疯狂边缘多元主义者，尤其是他们自己的群体。”[368]同上，第。 96。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）
• 艾夫曼先生知道不喜欢犹太人的人会被人鄙视，所以他坚决不相信任何关于犹太人的坏话。 “但是一个人不按照一个人应该思考的方式思考是不合适的，这意味着相信他眼前的证据而不是他所相信的东西 应该 相信。我们生活在一个意识形态僵化的时代，人们顺从地接受“认可”的想法，而没有勇气独立思考。顺从并不能成为一个男人。”[369]同上，第。 82。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）
• 耶稣基督、卡尔·马克思、西格蒙德·弗洛伊德和阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦是四位犹太人，他们有一个共同点：他们都是幻觉的缔造者。基督教：“如果我们的种族能在下个世纪幸存下来，那只是因为我们已经摆脱了基督教的猴子，并找到了一条通往真正西方灵性的道路。”马克思：“马克思的学说和耶稣的学说一样反西方。它的设计目的也是为了吸引西方社会的渣滓、我们当中最坏的分子，并将最好、最强的人拉到他们的水平……这根本行不通，而且它把它的设计者表现为一个虚幻的骗子。 ”弗洛伊德：“他强加给世界的一些关于人类动机的最奇怪的概念仍然被他的[犹太]弟子所宣扬。想象一下，神经质的女性向冒充医生或治疗师的弗洛伊德庸医支付了多少数百万美元！”爱因斯坦：“爱因斯坦以另外三个人的工作为基础，并加以补充。他提供了新的解释。为此，他值得赞扬。他的犹太同胞想要夸耀他一点是可以理解的，但他们的行为远不止于此。犹太小贩看到了建立另一个可以向外邦人推销的邪教人物的机会，他们做到了。”[370]同上，第105-106页。
  （安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）
• 文学、音乐、绘画和其他艺术领域的现代主义运动很大程度上是媒体的创造——由于媒体是由犹太人主导的，这意味着现代主义很大程度上是犹太人的创造。

至于现代主义，它不是对我们的文化、我们在整个历史上与所有其他白人共享的文化的否定吗？ 2,500 年前希腊人的文字和雕塑对今天的我们有吸引力，其原因与当时的希腊人同样有吸引力。我们以同样的方式回应美和秩序。荷马和索福克勒斯所表达的感情就是我们的感情。陀思妥耶夫斯基的著作既对英国人、德国人也对俄罗斯人说话，就像狄更斯对俄罗斯人和德国人说话，歌德对德国人和英国人说话一样。伦勃朗、特纳或弗里德里希的画作对所有欧洲人说了同样的事情，就像贝多芬的交响曲一样……我们的文化将我们联系在一起，让我们意识到我们共同的遗产。而犹太人，作为永远的局外人，试图闯入，无法容忍这一点。他必须拆散我们，破坏我们的团结，让我们相信我们彼此之间没有任何共同点，就像我们与黑人、中国人或犹太人一样。现代主义是寄生虫的基本策略。”[371]同上，第113-114页。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

• 关于全国联赛的目标：

我们意识到对世界上一切美丽和善良的威胁。我们中的一些人可能会以不同的方式表达，也许更个人化一点，并说我们在盲目地推动更加包容的平等主义、更加堕落的民主以及这些事情带来的所有后果中感受到了——越来越丑陋。 ，越来越多的混乱，越来越多的种族退化——对我们存在的意义的威胁。我们的个人和身体并未受到威胁，但我们所认同的事物、赋予我们生活意义的事物却受到了威胁。我们认同我们的种族，认同我们种族的理想化——更重要的是，我们的种族是这个过程的主要推动者，这个过程是更高层次的组织，这个过程是上帝的积极原则。”[372]同上，第。 196。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

• 关于联盟促进白人种族意识的目标：

意识是知识加意识加动机……要具有种族意识，一个人必须将一个人的种族知识提升到这样一种程度，以至于它实际上控制一个人的思想和行为；一个人必须对此始终保持清醒的认识；必须 感觉 它。一个人可以通过读书或听讲道来获得知识，但获得和维持意识通常需要改变一个人的生活方式。[373]同上，第194-195页。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

这本书的高潮是奥斯卡和瑞安之间的对决。瑞安希望奥斯卡“消灭”——也就是说，杀死——索尔。他告诉奥斯卡，索尔的电视节目正在煽动人们，他担心可能会出现税收反抗，这会妨碍他，瑞安，正在努力做的事情。奥斯卡对杀死他的联盟成员索尔的想法犹豫不决，这引发了奥斯卡和瑞安之间关于实现他们都想要实现的目标的最佳方法的争论。

瑞安解释了他的想法：我们现在最需要的是秩序和稳定，至少在未来几十年也是如此。现在不是破坏和反抗的时候；而是时候。白人还没有准备好。 “白人已经走得太远了，”他向奥斯卡解释道。 “他们不理解纪律、牺牲、为了共同目标而齐心协力。他们太软弱、太胆怯、太被宠坏、太自私、太不守纪律。”[374]同上，第。 248。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。） 瑞安希望在现行体制内工作，在民主进程内实现他的目的，并与包括犹太人在内的其他人结盟。他认为自己现实地与历史的力量保持一致，而不是忽视它们或理想主义地试图与它们作斗争，正如他认为奥斯卡和联盟正在做的那样：

如果你（奥斯卡）像我一样认真研究过历史，你可能已经认识到历史发展的某些普遍事实。历史有惯性。任何历史发展，例如我们在这个国家所经历的历史发展，因为它在本世纪已经从一个本质上同质的白人基督教国家转变为一个异质的、多种族的、多语言的、异端的乌合之众由犹太人和与犹太人结盟的不诚实的律师政治家统治，具有巨大的惯性。它在构造上移动，就像地球上的地壳板块一样。它的运动经过了很长一段时间的积累。这一运动是由历史力量推动的。这种事态发展根本无法扭转。人们最希望做的就是了解其动态并学习如何最好地适应它。这就是我打算做的。另一方面，你却想无视历史规律，迎头冲向所有带领美国走向前进方向的力量。特别是，你想正面对付犹太人。这样你是赢不了的。[375]同上，第246-247页。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

奥斯卡反驳了瑞安的论点，其内容相当于哈利·凯勒和全国联盟的计划，即提高白人的种族意识，然后以一种尚未具体说明的方式“将犹太人送入地狱”。在奥斯卡看来，争论归结为是像瑞恩想要的那样促进停滞更好，还是像他和联盟所支持的那样流动更好。

毫无疑问，你所说的有很多道理。毫无疑问，我们将面临一场绝望而危险的斗争。但我们 必须 机会吧，瑞安。我们 必须 打断当前的趋势。我们 必须 至少给我们的人民一个自救和重新开始的机会。我们 不能 让我们陷入新的停滞状态，犹太人继续控制媒体。那将不可避免地致命。当局势不断进步，当人民充满建设性精神并为子孙后代建设更美好的未来时，秩序和稳定就是好事。但当情况倒退时，秩序和稳定就成为生命的敌人，真正进步的敌人。[376]同上，第。 248。
（安德鲁·麦克唐纳（威廉·皮尔斯）​​， Hunter （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1989 年）。）

为了强调他的观点，奥斯卡捏住瑞安在两人谈话时一直摆弄的一支笔的口袋夹，向他的脸上喷射催泪瓦斯。然后，他用手枪向瑞安的腹部快速射击了两发子弹，然后又向瑞安的后脑勺开了一枪，结束了这场辩论——而且，出于所有实际目的，也结束了这本书。

我得出的结论是，哈里·凯勒就是皮尔斯，而且——这似乎是显而易见的——国家联盟就是国家联盟。对于皮尔斯选择国家联盟（职业棒球大联盟之一的名称）作为他自己组织的虚构对手的名称，我暗自窃笑，因为我知道他有多么鄙视大众化的、商业化的观赏性体育运动。他认为人们应该自己进行体育锻炼，而不是看别人玩游戏。他还认为，观赏性体育运动是系统分散人们注意力的一种方式，让他们无法专注于他们应该关注和做的重要事情。最后，就像他生活中的几乎所有事情一样，他根据种族来评估体育运动，即黑人在棒球、橄榄球和篮球等主要观赏性运动中非常突出。他认为这些企业是为了他们而不是我们，并想知道为什么这么多白人陷入其中。我记得一个周末——我不记得是周六还是周日——我和皮尔斯一起去总部大楼二楼看晚间新闻。但他不在场，现场一片漆黑。我去找他，发现他坐在办公室的办公桌前，表情有些沮丧，是我从未见过的。我说我刚从电视区出来，本来以为会在那里见到他的。他沮丧地嘀咕道：“他们抢先报道了球赛的消息，该死。”

返回 Hunter读完这本书后，我认为奥斯卡·耶格尔代表了皮尔斯希望吸引到他的组织——国家联盟的那种新人——聪明、注重行动、乐于接受他，皮尔斯，可以教给他的东西。至于书的结尾，奥斯卡派出了瑞安，我认为这是皮尔斯和联盟的经营方式相对于更保守的方式的胜利。然后皮尔斯在书中做了很多宣泄性的幻想和演讲。我想，把所有这些放在一起，这就是这本书的内容。我和皮尔斯的谈话内容是 Hunter接下来的内容促使我重新思考我的结论。

“当我写下后来的内容时 特纳日记”，皮尔斯告诉我，“在我看来，我并不是在写一本书。这是我当时出版的小报的一系列故事， 攻击！。 这只是一个实验。我想，让我们看看事情进展如何。当我刚开始的时候，我并没有关于小说的影响的详细理论，也没有计划好的我正在写的情节。我只是想我会以虚构的形式添加一些信息，看看这是否会让某些类型的人更容易理解，然后我就开始了，杂志每期一集。我从没想过它会成为一本书。坦率地说，如果我意识到这将是一本书，我在写作时会更加小心

“什么时候 特纳日记 然而，当我开始产生影响时，我确实开始更多地思考这种现象，并且我得出的结论是，小说确实可以成为传播思想的强大媒介。我想到其他人，包括那些以与我相反的方式看待事物的人，如何如此有效地使用这种媒介。我提出了一个解释，我确信这不是原创的，解释为什么小说如果做得正确的话会对人们产生如此强大的影响。简单地说，读者——或者电视观众、电影观众或戏剧观众——开始认同主角。一旦发生这种情况，您就可以将这个人带到您想要的地方。他间接地体验了这个动作并开始关心主角。主角陷入了困境，读者感受到了他的处境并为他担心：“天啊，这太糟糕了，他将如何摆脱困境？”主人公坠入爱河，或兴奋，或愤怒，或期待或害怕某事，读者也是如此。读者会对主角的事情发展产生一种根深蒂固的兴趣。不仅如此，如果某件事写得很好，读者就会开始像主角一样思考——最有力的事情是——如果主角学到了一些东西或开始相信一些东西，如果他改变了自己的想法，读者就会开始思考。倾向于做同样的事情，他也会改变。所以你拥有的是一个强大的教学工具，一个有说服力的工具。

“所以你所做的——这就是我所做的 Hunter——在这个例子中，让你的主角奥斯卡·耶格尔(Oscar Yeager)从你想象的可能会拿起这本书的读者的共同心态开始。主角在与其他角色的对话中阐明了这种心态，并以这种方式处理事情、解决问题等等。然后——砰！——有什么东西进入了他的生活，动摇了他对待事物的方式。通过他的经历，主人公改变了他的想法，而与主人公一起经历过事情的读者也改变了他的想法，或者学习了。当然，你必须让它令人信服。也许你让主角抵制改变——“我从来没有被教导过这个”“这不可能”——但最终现实或逻辑，不管怎样，迫使他改变他看待事物和行为的方式，而读者也会改变方式。

“从一开始与 Hunter，我想到了小说如何作为一种教学工具，我从一开始就将它视为一本书。我在1984年写了第一章，之后很长一段时间我都没有时间继续写。我在 1989 年一年内完成了整个工作。我确实认为，与其他人相比，我写这本书是一个更好的小说作家。 特纳日记。我认为这很讽刺 特纳日记 产生了如此大的影响，至少到目前为止 Hunter 没有。但我认为这与两本书的质量无关。这是由于我无法控制的情况造成的。如果有人模仿奥斯卡·耶格尔并且发现他就是这么做的，那么也许 Hunter 会像火箭一样起飞。”

“有人声称耶格尔是根据一个名叫约瑟夫·保罗·富兰克林的真人改编的。真的吗？” （富兰克林在 1970 世纪 XNUMX 年代杀害了跨种族夫妇，目前被关在密苏里州的监狱里。）

“不，它不是根据富兰克林改编的，”皮尔斯简短地回答。 “但继续下去，我们的想法是让耶格尔和读者一起经历事情，并以同样的方式做出改变。我把自己放在耶格尔的立场上，试图让耶格尔像我一样发展，让他的想法像我一样改变。我让耶格尔从相当传统的观点开始，然后变得激进：通过他在越南战争中的经历，他后来在研究生院的学习，他与哈里·凯勒的关系，以及最大的影响，威廉·瑞安对他的影响”。

“听到你说你把自己置于耶格尔的位置，这很有趣。当我读这本书时，我以为你会把自己视为国家联盟的哈里·凯勒，我认为国家联盟就是国家联盟，从你——凯勒的——角度来看，耶格尔是你想要吸引到你的组织中的那种原材料。组织——聪明、坚韧、以行动为导向、无情——以及你可以教育和塑造的人。”

“我特别认同耶格尔，因为他是我想成为的那种人。但实际上我在和他打交道时，我把自己放在了书中每个人物的位置上。我问自己我会说什么以及我会如何回应发生在他身上的事情。就像耶格尔和瑞安之间的交流一样，我会在他们辩论时将人物角色从一个切换到另一个。”

“在书的最后，耶格尔杀死了瑞安，你写到耶格尔选择了流动而不是停滞——而瑞安代表了停滞。这是你试图传达的基本信息吗？流动优于停滞？”

“是的。瑞安是一个保守派——一个非常坚强、思想自由、独立的保守派，但仍然是一个保守派。他本质上并不是一个种族主义者。他基本上是亲政府的。瑞安赞成首先控制系统，然后消除其一些最具破坏性的倾向。另一方面，耶格尔认为这个系统是如此腐败，以至于必须将其废除并从头开始彻底重建。”

“在我看来，你似乎把事情留在了书的最后。” （在最后一页，奥斯卡开始思考是时候回到“狩猎”了。）

“我想，嘿，我会看看这个怎么样，然后也许我会写续集。但这本书确实有一个结论：耶格尔和瑞安之间的对话，然后耶格尔杀死了瑞安，解放了自己，可以为所欲为。”

“Hunter 这不是书店会出售的书，但请注意，你可以通过亚马逊购买它。”

“我们还有其他一些人为我们分发它。最大的卖家可能是阿肯色州的 Delta Press。他们主要迎合军事市场——退伍军人和对军事文化感兴趣的人，他们出售一系列军事手册，这些手册最初是由政府印刷局制作的，用于培训军事人员如何使用各种武器，如何制作诱杀装置。陷阱、如何进行侦察巡逻、如何建造防御工事、如何建造厕所等等。他们都卖 特纳日记 和 Hunter设立的区域办事处外，我们在美国也开设了办事处，以便我们为当地客户提供更多的支持。“

“你有写更多小说的计划吗？”

“我真的很想做更多这样的事情。这是一项艰苦的工作，但它充满创意、有趣，而且非常有价值。一天结束时，我可以看着并说：“一切都完成了，很好。”但我现在没有时间这样做。我每周都会有一个广播剧本要发布，我想留在广播节目中，因为它让我有发言权。我每周都会与世界谈论我认为重要的事情。我希望有一个人可以接管至少部分无线电负载，我可以指望他能完成高质量的工作，并找人帮助这里的行政工作。然后我就可以摆脱工作负担，去做其他事情，比如写小说。

“不过，如果我有时间写一本书，现在它就不再是小说了。在我还能写的时候，有几本严肃的非小说类书籍需要写。然后我就可以退休并写小说了。我想写的一本书是一本涉及我整理的宇宙神社区小册子中内容的书，除了简单的散文和大量的例子。它将为整个事情提供一个理由。它会告诉人们一切将走向何方，这一切意味着什么，以及为什么他们应该做我认为他们应该做的事情。”

在另一次谈话中，皮尔斯告诉我他想写一本书，这可能就是他在我们的讨论中谈到的同一本书。 Hunter。那次，他说他想写一本书来阐明他看待事物的方式。它会试图在哲学上将一切联系在一起。他说，事情会进展得很慢，并把一切都说清楚。它将涉及基本价值观和目的。他心目中的这本书将讲述一个人在设定人生目标时应该牢记的注意事项。这将是关于如何找到生活的目的和意义。这将是关于自然伦理、绝对伦理——这些是他使用的术语——以及它们的含义和导向。这将阐明为什么他关心拯救自己的种族，以及为什么他认为其他人也应该如此。他为这本书写了大约五十页的内容，但目前还没有开始写这本书。

“我想写另一本书，”皮尔斯继续说道，“大约十五年前，我在大约三年的时间内写了分期付款的书，称为 关于我们。我为此做了很多研究。这是一部从生命起源开始并涉及古人类学的种族历史——在有记载的历史出现之前。它从种族的角度审视希腊人、罗马人、日耳曼人、凯尔特人等。我认为我当时写的那些作品可以写成一本非常好的书，因为不幸的是大多数人在学校里没有了解种族历史。当我在学校的时候，虽然我没有明确地理解这一点，但那里有足够的健康、传统的课程，让我对其中的一些东西有了一种感觉。 1950 世纪 XNUMX 年代初，当我在莱斯大学学习时，我选修了一门名为“西方文明基础”的课程。我不认为老师受到特别的启发，尽管我必须说我非常迷恋她。她的名字叫凯瑟琳·费舍尔。她后来嫁给了一个名叫德鲁的人，并继续取得伟大的成就，包括在美国历史协会中担任高级职位。事实上，那门课程的材料很好，我很感兴趣，但不幸的是我还不成熟，还有很多其他的事情要做。但那次经历让我有足够的感觉，这些人就是我正在研究的人。我的人民就是这样发展起来的。后来我自己做了很多阅读和思考。不用说，现在控制了大学的人一想到白人孩子更关注欧洲文明的发展而不是赤道非洲不同风格的泥屋，就感到畏缩。

“如果我要写这样的比赛历史，我必须重新格式化它并进行大量研究并进行大量更正。我们一些了解人类学和历史的人指出了我犯错误或不完整的地方。我必须躲起来，专心致志地做这件事。我认为这将为人们提供有用且令人信服的来源，而这是他们现在无法获得的。

“如果纽约一家大出版社能够出版我写的这本书，我会非常高兴，这样我就可以花所有的时间尽力写出最好的作品。但我必须建立一个组织和出版工具，这样，如果出版商和连锁书店封锁我的书，就像除了莱尔·斯图尔特（Lyle Stuart）拿起书之外的情况一样 特纳日记 时间很短——无论如何我都可以提供它们。我是一个非常孤独的人，我宁愿不参与所有这些组织和行政事务，但我必须向人们传达我要说的话，并让他们有机会接触到他们不会接触到的想法和材料。否则允许体验。”

在我和皮尔斯谈论之后 Hunter，我重新思考了我对书中人物的看法。皮尔斯说他认同耶格尔和所有其他角色，这让我很感动。或者至少是所有其他男性角色——我不觉得他认同阿德莱德或科琳。所以对于皮尔斯来说，这不是哈利·凯勒的问题 me 和所有其他（男性）角色 他们。更何况，那是 每周 角色就是我，每个角色都是皮尔斯本人——无论是他现在的样子，还是他想成为的或可能成为的样子。耶格尔是皮尔斯希望成为的空军飞行员，如果他能够满足要求的话。所有关于种族和历史的阅读都是奥斯卡在科罗拉多州完成的——皮尔斯已经这样做了，或者至少他从科罗拉多州开始，并在加利福尼亚州和俄勒冈州继续这样做。奥斯卡反思了越南时代对年轻人的影响，尤其是毒品、对合法权威的不尊重、种族意识的淡化等等，皮尔斯也做到了这一点。当然不同的是，奥斯卡是一个实干家，而且极其暴力。从这个意义上来说，你不能称皮尔斯是一个实干家，但正如他在我们谈论这本书时所说的那样，奥斯卡是他想成为的那种人。虽然皮尔斯可能不像奥斯卡那样暴力，但毫无疑问他至少考虑过暴力。然后我和他谈论了他搬到西弗吉尼亚州的事情，当时他说他在华盛顿做了一些可能会让他终身监禁的事情。

当然，凯勒就是皮尔斯。索尔是皮尔斯，正如他所想成为的那样——请记住，这是在 1980 世纪 XNUMX 年代末，广播节目之前写的——通过媒体向大众传达信息的人。我想到了这个角色的名字，索尔——对于皮尔斯书中的角色来说，这是一个不寻常的名字。这可能是指圣经中的保罗——在与我讨论时，皮尔斯称他为“塔尔苏斯的扫罗”，以强调他的犹太身份和基督教的犹太基础。也许皮尔斯将自己视为萧伯纳思想和国家社会主义的保罗，这个词的传播者。

至于瑞安，他是一个内部人士，一个双手掌握权力的人，皮尔斯可能就是这样的人，而不是边缘人物。瑞安是皮尔斯的一部分，他希望自己处于内部，而不是总是在外面观察。瑞安是皮尔斯的一部分，渴望与他曾经工作过的主流社会中最优秀和最聪明的人接触。瑞安代表了皮尔斯身上的保守冲动，但这种冲动却被他激进的、对抗性的一面所掩盖，而这种激进的、对抗性的一面自俄勒冈州立大学时代以来一直占据主导地位，至今已超过三十五年。瑞安是皮尔斯现实的、又有些悲观的一部分，皮尔斯知道剧烈的革命性变革的基础现在还没有到位，而且短期内也不会到位。当奥斯卡杀死瑞恩时，皮尔斯正在杀死瑞恩所代表的自己的一部分——那些信念、那些渴望、那些疑虑。瑞安的死证实了皮尔斯在过去三十年里所做的一切，它消除了一些他不想承受的遗憾和矛盾心理。瑞安的去世为我们开始撰写下一个影响深远的广播节目和筹备下一次全国联盟会议扫清了道路，而不必去思考事情可能会有所不同。

“你可能想在这个项目中加入另一个人，”当我在一次晚间谈话结束后离开他的办公室时，皮尔斯对我喊道，“他是威廉·盖利·辛普森。你认识他吗？

辛普森的名字确实让我产生了一些联想。我知道他写了一本书叫 西方人走哪条路？ 皮尔斯以他自己的品牌“国家先锋图书”出版了这本书。[377]威廉·盖利·辛普森, 西方人走哪条路？ （华盛顿特区：国家先锋图书公司，1978 年）。 我注意到辛普森的书是因为这是皮尔斯选择以这种方式赞助的仅有的四本书之一——其他的是他自己的两本小说， 特纳日记 和 Hunter，还有另一本小说， 蛇行兰道夫·卡尔弗希尔 (Randolph Calverhill) 的作品，其前提是希特勒精锐党卫军的幸存者在战后继续奋斗。[378]兰道夫·卡尔弗希尔, 蛇行 （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1991 年。 皮尔斯一如既往地支持辛普森的书，这足以促使我在心里记下这本书，看看是什么吸引皮尔斯出版这本书。然后，我在调查鲍勃·马修斯的故事时发现的一些事情增强了我对这本书的兴趣。马修斯真的很着迷 西方人哪条路？ 据报道，加入国家联盟后不久，马修斯夜以继日地研读这本书，并用红笔标记各个部分。[379]凯文·弗林和加里·格哈特， 沉默的兄弟会 （纽约：Signet，1990 年），第 105-106 页。 So 西方人走哪条路？ 在我的待办事项清单上。但当皮尔斯将辛普森带入我们的讨论时，我还没有看过这本书，对辛普森一无所知。

“辛普森出生于 1892 年，与我父亲同年，”皮尔斯继续说道，“所以他比我早一代人。在三十年代，他与公众进行了广泛的互动，在很多大学发表演讲，主要是关于和平问题，我们如何决不能卷入另一场世界大战之类的问题，有一次他教拉丁语，在他居住的纽约州附近的一所寄宿学校学习数学和历史。不知何故，他得到了我写的一些东西——这一定是在 30 年左右——并且他写信给我。那时他已经八十三岁了。

“不管怎样，我们开始通信——关于基本的事情；这根本不是肤浅的。我发现辛普森是一个深沉、敏感、严肃的人。 [说实话，最后一项对皮尔斯来说尤其重要。他对严肃的人和他所说的“业余爱好者”做了基本的区分。]所以我决定去见他。他邀请了我，我就去他的农场拜访他。他亲手建造了一座农舍——一座非常漂亮的房子——还有一家商店和附属建筑。他做了一些种植工作，但大多数时候他只是住在那里思考、写作并与来自世界各地的人们保持联系。我第一次和他呆了几天，之后我又拜访了他几次。

“这期间，辛普森寄给我一本他在1934年出版的自传，我读了之后印象深刻。他告诉我他正在完成一本书，他认为这本书非常重要，结果证明是 西方人哪条路？ 我读到了他在纽约成功完成的初印本，给我留下了深刻的印象。我们（国家先锋图书公司）为他出售了大部分印刷品，然后我们自己又印刷了两本，大约七千册，并全部售罄。这本书已经绝版了大约五六年了。我记得辛普森去世前，我记得那是在 1990 年——我记得他还没有读到一百本——我向他承诺，在我们售完第二版之后，我会再次重印这本书。但他给了我他想要在下一版本中进行更改的完整列表，这使得它成为一项非常艰巨的工作，而我只是没有足够的资源来完成它。

“我很遗憾在辛普森去世前我没有更好地了解他。我发现他是一个非常有趣的人，我钦佩他是一个真正无私的人。他是生命力的真正仆人。他没有把自己的福利、银行账户、肉体的快乐或其他任何事情放在他认为正确的事情之前。在这里，让我给你一份 西方人哪条路？ =

皮尔斯从办公桌上站起来，向左转，走了几步，然后向左转，穿过敞开的门，进入了他的图书馆。我跟着。里面很黑——我几乎看不清书名。这是一个很大的房间。我估计它大约有二十乘二十五英尺。这让我想起了大学图书馆里的书架，同样的金属书架和排列方式。墙壁上堆满了书，两排书架从地板到天花板都紧紧地堆满了书，横跨房间的内部。皮尔斯在书架上贴了标签，对他的收藏进行分类，所以他知道在哪里可以找到辛普森的书。他直接走到了门对面的墙壁前，简单的搜索了一下，就找到了自己要找的东西。我站在他身后，看着这个灰发高大的男人站在这个阴暗的图书馆里，他默默地看着书名，找到辛普森的书后就翻了几页。

皮尔斯转身对我说：“就是这样，”然后递给我那本厚重的深蓝色平装书。后来我才知道，这是一本 758 页的书，我的手有点受不了了。

我感谢皮尔斯送了这本书，并告诉他我会用那天晚上剩下的时间和第二天来阅读这本书，如果我能完成它并整理好我的想法，我会在第二天晚上和他谈谈辛普森写的内容。皮尔斯说他没问题，我向他道晚安。

我花了晚上剩下的时间翻阅 西方人走哪条路？时不时停下来读一两三页，让自己找个方向。很快我就发现，这本书涵盖的主题远远超出了我目前有时间探索的主题。因此，我在书中寻找一个焦点、某个主题或重点，以服务于我正在整理的关于皮尔斯的书，当我们第二天晚上再次交谈时，我可以向皮尔斯询问一些事情。

不到一个小时，我就找到了令我感兴趣的。辛普森书中的一个中心思想是他对基督教的看法。事实证明，基督教是辛普森存在的核心。他曾在著名的协和神学院学习事工。直到三十岁中后期，基督教教义一直指导着他的思想和行动，而教会在西方文化中的地位为他一生的反思提供了背景。我有一个角度来参加辛普森阅读会，这占用了我的时间，直到那天晚上午夜过后，以及第二天一整天，直到晚上 7:00 与皮尔斯会面。

In 西方人走哪条路？ 辛普森告诉读者，他在二十多岁的时候读到了阿西西的方济各的生平，并发现它是一种灵感和个人挑战。在辛普森眼中，圣方济各体现了耶稣对世界上最忠诚的追随者的意义。辛普森二十八岁时，独自在圣劳伦斯河的一个岛上度过了一个月，他决定将这一理想融入自己的生活中：

1920 年，经过五年不懈的探索，在我们的世界上寻找一个能让我的生命最有价值的地方，我毫无保留、毫不妥协地承诺，按照我的宗教最广泛的影响力向我指示的行动方针。洞察力和奉献精神，我最高的理想主义，以及我经过深思熟虑的信念。我全心全意地努力将耶稣的教导付诸实践。我相信他的话——绝对是字面意思——就像阿西西的弗朗西斯那样。[380]辛普森，p。九.

辛普森过着方济各会的生活九年。他把精力集中在大城市，穿越美洲大陆，试图改善那些生活艰难的人们的环境。他作为一名普通劳动者辛勤工作，把他的工作当作礼物，并依靠别人选择给他的任何回报来生活。事实证明，这次经历不仅考验了辛普森的为人，也考验了迄今为止指导他生活的基础：自由主义、唯心主义和基督教。

当辛普森得出这样的结论时，他结束了人生的这一阶段：他近十年来的行事方式既不是他服务他人的最佳方式，也不符合他自己的个人性格。尽管表面上看起来值得称赞，但他最终决定，他一直在做的事情并没有触及人类问题的核心。没有，因为它不是那么多 条件 人类需要改进，而不是他们的 口径，而他处理事情的方式并没有达到那个目的。至于他自己，回顾过去，辛普森发现他曾试图与最底层、最微不足道的人平等，但这不是他，这不是他的人生之路，这不是他的方式向前。现在他很清楚，他真正想做的是重新恢复召唤他的心灵生活，并重新与他强烈认为对他来说自然的贵族本能和品味建立联系。另外，他只是厌倦了自己所过的城市生活：“我对城市乃至我们整个文明的疯狂感越来越强烈，对山脉和海洋的渴望越来越强烈，对海洋的渴望也越来越强烈。渴望贴近地球生活并自己种植食物。”[381]同上，第。 3。
（辛普森，第 ix 页）

1932 年，辛普森离开了陪伴他进行方济各会冒险的妻子和孩子。一位朋友帮助他支付了纽约州卡茨基尔山脉一座农场的首付，他在那里度过了漫长的余生。从那时起，他的主要使命就是研究人类——它的本质、它的局限性、它的可能性。从那时起，他不再像以前那样专注于此时此刻的贫困和绝望，而是以他将创造的未来的积极愿景为指导：“我希望对自己说的是未来[为了]为新的黎明做好准备，我相信新的黎明最终一定会取代夜晚的暴风雨。”[382]同上，第。 7。
（辛普森，第 ix 页） 辛普森将他的余生奉献给了试图为人类更好的生存指明道路，特别是那些他越来越多地视为他的人民的人，即那些具有欧洲背景的人。尤其是对他们来说，他试图描述一种健康、强健、美丽、高贵和有意义的生活，远远超出他们目前所寻求和获得的，并且更符合他所认为的他们的真实本质和可能性。辛普森开始写一系列论文，阐述他的想法并将其发送给朋友。这些论文成为了基础 西方人哪条路？ 我将重点讨论辛普森的宗教观点，这是该作品的核心部分。

In 西方人哪条路？辛普森分析了他年轻时思想和行为基础的宗教理想，并提出了他认为更加肯定生活和增强生活的观点，作为一个人生活的基础。辛普森指出，“如果你是一个好基督徒，那就为他人行善”——特别强调关心和给予弱势群体、受压迫者、不幸者、病人、悲伤者、受苦者——一直是一个基督教的中心信息。辛普森说，这种为有需要的人服务的基督教理想最初源于耶稣作为好牧人的观念。近代以来，这一理想常常带有社会福音的内涵：改革世界已成为许多信徒的呼声和责任。正是基督教的这种服务/改革信息在辛普森年轻时对他产生了如此强烈的影响。它给了他生命的意义和方向，让他感到正义、光明，成为精神先锋队的一员。

辛普森现在相信，他在方济会时期所表现出的承诺和勤奋确实值得赞扬，当他回想起来时，他确实减轻了许多人的痛苦。尽管如此，辛普森确信他在人生的这个阶段被误导了。他被误导了，因为他的基督教倾向使他关注人类平等问题，并分散了他对九年经历的认识，即人类面临的最根本问题：人类 质量。他最终得出结论，他的方济各会观点与他最终认为值得为自己和他人寻求的唯一一种生活背道而驰，那就是高质量的生活。辛普森断定，人类实际上是 不能 平等的。而且，从质量上来说，他们已经不如从前了，主要原因是人类中优秀的成分正在被最差的成分超越。辛普森在他的书中断言，我们需要关注这个问题并采取一些措施。事实上，辛普森对教会的每一次批评 西方人走哪条路？ 是基于对人类质量、个人和集体生活以及人类繁殖模式相关问题的关注。

In 西方人走哪条路？ 辛普森定义了一种生活方式，他确信这种生活方式比他以前遵循的基督教服务理想更好。辛普森强调的不是试图拯救某人或改善某些社会状况，而是让自己的生活闪闪发光：也就是说，按照自己的最高愿景诚实地生活。辛普森认为，在此基础上生活符合基本的人性。 “没有任何未受破坏和未驯服的生活想要‘变得美好’，”辛普森辩称。 “它想要成为它自己。”[383]同上，第。 24。
（辛普森，第 ix 页） 辛普森写道，在所有不间断的生活中，最大的动力就是满足其存在最深处的需求。辛普森建议，因此，下定决心要活出真正的自己。让你的外表与你的内在相匹配。服从你最深的冲动。满足您最不可剥夺和无法满足的欲望。辛普森建议，与其追随耶稣，不如追随你内心的神。

辛普森断言，基督教使我们与同类隔绝。他认为，基督教强调其信徒之间的精神共性和团结，掩盖了急需的生物和文化联系和认同感。基督教呼吁尊重全人类兄弟情谊的理念，而辛普森则呼吁提高对我们这些北欧人与其他民族的区别的认识，并维护我们之间“不可分割的纽带”。[384]同上，第。 59。
（辛普森，第 ix 页） 辛普森认为，这种纽带的存在至关重要，因为它鼓励我们对祖先的亏欠和义务感，并致力于为我们的文化和种族的未来福祉服务。

辛普森相信，那些关注种族福祉的人将会被吸引来看看他所看到的：如果一个民族不认真关注自我补充，就不会维持或超越自己，正如他所说它是“源源不断的充满活力和天赋的新生命”。[385]同上。
（辛普森，第 ix 页） 诚然，教会对新生命非常感兴趣，因为它希望羊群中有尽可能多的人。但辛普森认为，它的基本关注点是新生活的数量而不是质量。因此，辛普森最终谈论的是为同类他人提供服务，但这是为人民的生存和质量进步提供的服务，并且在很大程度上不同于寻求医治病人或为穷人服务。

辛普森认为，基督教对虔诚实践和内在存在状态的关注具有将我们与存在的物质方面分离的效果——辛普森认为，疏远会导致我们作为个人和民族的停滞和恶化。辛普森所说的生命的物质方面，指的是地球本身以及饮食、性以及繁殖等事物。辛普森警告我们不要忽视与“人与构成他的大地的关系；人与人的关系”相关的问题。支持植物和动物生命并为他提供食物的土壤状况；以及男人的身体健康和身体美丽，以及生儿育女的旺盛意志作为其标志。”[386]同上，第。 57。
（辛普森，第 ix 页） 辛普森说，我们是一个物理有机体，是自然的一部分，处于进化过程的特定阶段。教会的教义和实践掩盖了这些现实，这对我们来说是一种伤害。

辛普森提出了这个案例 西方人哪条路？基督教对力量、活力、基于血统和教养的区别以及贵族卓越——这些支持种族质量进步的事物不够关心。相反，辛普森声称，基督教对西方文明产生了令人作呕、削弱和阉割的影响，因为它使我们受制于理想和方式，从而削弱了我们作为一个民族的活力。辛普森表示，基督教的特点是“软”价值观：无私、慈善、宽恕、耐心、谦逊和怜悯。辛普森认为，教会过于关注“穷人、病人、失败者、卑微者、罪人和被遗弃者”，而对“体格健全、健康、美丽、有能力、坚强的人”关注不够。 ，并感到自豪。”[387]同上，第。 25。
（辛普森，第 ix 页） 辛普森相信，人们会成为他们最看重和最关注的人，因此，至少按照辛普森的标准，基督教恰恰给我们指出了错误的方向。

辛普森写道，基督教过于强调一个人对外在神灵的服从以及将责任和权力转移给这个更高的权威。与这种关注相反，辛普森指出，在基督教占主导地位之前，绵延三千年历史的欧洲人最相信的是高贵和优秀的个人。他们期望人们能够自力更生，做出一番成绩，并从那些证明自己真正优秀的人身上寻找领导力。基督教的多愁善感和超凡脱俗

剥夺了人对内心深处自我的信仰，也就是对生命的信仰。它夺走了他的斗争，没有斗争就没有成长，没有成就感。它并没有告诉人类要把根深深扎入土壤，去获取食物和饮料，并迫使他的嫩芽向天空、阳光和空气生长。相反，它告诉人类，这一切昂贵而痛苦的劳动都是别人为他做的，接受这个事实并安息其中，最终他将被移植到另一个花园（天堂），并奇迹般地转变为一朵完全成熟、完美的花。[388]同上，第。 20。
（辛普森，第 ix 页）

辛普森说，根本就没有其他花园，而如果生活得好像有其他花园一样，就会导致地球上唯一的这个花园，我们的花园，仍然——或者变得——荒芜。

辛普森认为基督教是闪族宗教，与欧洲精神格格不入。虽然有些人断言基督是外邦人，但无论如何，从宗教角度来说，他是犹太人。无论如何，基督的教义已经通过塔尔苏斯的扫罗（被称为使徒保罗）过滤，以至于基督教可以说是保罗的宗教，而不是耶稣的宗教，而且保罗当然是犹太人。托马斯·卡希尔最近写了一本畅销书，题为 犹太人的礼物：沙漠游牧部落如何改变每个人的思考和感受方式.[389]13.托马斯·卡希尔， 犹太人的礼物：沙漠游牧部落如何改变每个人的思考和感受方式 （纽约：Doubleday，1998年）。 虽然辛普森同意卡希尔的观点，即犹太宗教对西方世界的影响确实很大，但他肯定不会用“礼物”这个词来形容它们。辛普森认为，从长远来看，没有人能够繁荣，甚至能够长期维持自己，除非他们生活在符合他们自己本质和生活方式的宗教之中：“一个民族的宗教应该来自他们自己的血统。这应该是他们自己最内心的灵魂的显现，他们自己的希望和梦想，以及他们通过自己的远古经历所学到的教训在他们眼前的提升。”[390]辛普森，p。 61. 以这个标准为衡量标准，基督教确实不是送给西方世界的礼物。

辛普森认为，欧洲血统的人需要一种自己的宗教，一种与他们过去最好的事物和现在的迫切需要相一致的宗教。他呼吁建立一种“真正属于我们自己的”宗教，这种宗教将“为我们生活的各个方面，个人的和社会的，男人和女人以及孩子，从上到下，从最低到最高。”[391]同上，第。 65。
（辛普森，第 61 页。） 他设想一本圣经

承载着我们自己的理想和传统，我们最高成就和胜利的记录，我们圣人和英雄的故事，我们伟大智者和导师的告诫，我们自己的希望和梦想以及被推向遥远的目标的愿景未来。这将是一本生命之书，不是穷人、弱者或温顺者的生命之书，而是强者和大师的生命之书，他们凭借自己的掌握 超越他们自己 将把他们的生活塑造成灵魂和身体更加美丽的东西……这将是他们对生命的感恩之书，他们的欢乐之书，他们的摇篮曲和战歌，他们灵魂的镜子，翱翔在广阔的深渊和鹰眼研究遥远的地平线。对于一个决心不惜一切代价生活在高处、做自己的民族来说，这将是一本极其肯定的书。而它宁可灭亡，也不愿让位给任何其他东西，以服务于他的意志。[392]同上。
（辛普森，第 61 页。）

辛普森问道，为什么亚里士多德不能成为我们的摩西、荷马或我们的《出埃及记》和《士师记》中的一些冰岛传奇？为什么但丁或歌德不能代替约伯？为什么布莱克不能取代《约翰启示录》，莎士比亚不能取代《传道书》？为什么诗篇不能被我们中的一些人的记录所取代，无论是过去、现在还是将来，他们的生活和教义对我们集体的灵魂最有启发？[393]同上。
（辛普森，第 61 页。）

第二天晚上，当我见到皮尔斯时，我问他对辛普森对待基督教的方式有何反应。 西方人哪条路？

“我对辛普森所说的话非常满意，”皮尔斯回答道。 “当我在 70 年代中后期读到他的书时，我已经很清楚地得出结论：基督教是我们人民的主要精神疾病之一，我们确实必须正视这一问题。我们不能假装这只是一个小问题：我们必须弄清楚如何处理它。我认为辛普森关于这个问题的结论很有分量。当辛普森如此沉浸其中时，他比地球上的任何其他人都更自称是一名真正的基督徒。他不像我那样很早就拒绝基督教。他是一个非常诚实、要求严格、体贴的人。另外，他是一个见多识广的人，与当时的一些知识领袖有联系。因此我认为他的结论特别重要。”

“你用‘重大精神疾病’这个词来形容基督教，”我插话道。 “这相当强啊。”

“是的，是的，”皮尔斯回答道。 “但在我看来，基督教有许多对我们人民极具破坏性的因素。其中之一是其平等主义。你知道：“温顺者将继承大地”，“最后的将是最先的，最先的将是最后的”，等等。这就是整个登山布道的理念，即拉平和贬低那些处于顶端的人，无论他们是如何到达那里的。它是基督教教义的基本组成部分，我认为它对任何有序的社会都有破坏性。当你看待基督教时，你必须超越要求和仪式——你应该受洗，你应该遵守婚姻圣礼等等——并看看根本的东西，比如这个宗教中的平等主义、布尔什维克的信息，这确实是危险并帮助我们进入了这个民主时代。

“基督教中有普世主义的信息。我们都是相似的，从根本上来说，人与人之间没有区别，唯一重要的是你是否属于耶稣的羊群。这就是“我们在基督耶稣里合而为一”的理念——男人和女人，白人和黑人，希腊人和犹太人。在主眼中我们都是平等的，这一点。所有这些从根本上反对我所持有的进化论观点，并且我认为进化论观点是进步所必需的。事实是，我们并不都是一个人，我们彼此不同，有些个人和文化比其他人更好。任何掩盖现实及其含义的事物都会阻碍事情的发展。

“基督教固有的另一个观念是，我们在地球上所做的事情并不重要。今生只是一个试验场；真正的行动将在我们死后在其他地方继续进行——这种思路。还有一种观念是，我们不必真的继续关注这个案子，因为一切都在上帝的掌控之中。他一直在注视着我们，关心着我们，他可以按下这个或那个按钮，让任何他想要的事情发生。我们无法控制，无论如何我们也不需要这样做，因为这实际上不是我们的责任，而是上帝的责任。我和许多聪明的基督徒交谈过，他们都接受这个想法。对我来说，这归结为放弃责任。

“还有基督教中的所有迷信和疯狂。当基督徒有机会时，他们烧死自由思想家，几个世纪以来扼杀智力发展，并带领人们参加那些自杀式的十字军东征。所以我认为基督教不仅仅是一种幽默的反常行为；它是一种不道德的行为。这真的很危险。同时我说我承认许多（如果不是大多数）基督徒基本上都是理性和正派的人。只是他们没有把事情想清楚而已。它们不是问题——问题是教义。”

“我想你同意辛普森的观点，即基督教是一种外来宗教。”

“我愿意。欧洲精神更多地体现在北欧的异教传统中。在那个传统中，更多的是这样的观念：人应对他周围的世界负责。他对自己的行为负责。他除了他自己之外不对任何人负责。对我来说，践行欧洲的荣誉和责任概念比试图追随基督教更符合我们的本性。我意识到这是一个复杂的主题，因为一千年来基督教已经被欧洲的情感、传统和宗教观念所改变。这就是基督教如何通过适应欧洲的条件而成功地控制了欧洲。”

在得知鲍勃·马修斯将自己视为奥丁主义者后，我对异教进行了一些研究。奥丁主义是一种异教，它认为真理是自然所固有的，并由自然所揭示，而不是由上帝来监督。马修斯被这种前基督教宗教所吸引，认为它反映了雅利安人的精神和意志。奥丁是北欧神话的父神。他统治着诸神万神殿，其中包括雷神托尔。他被描绘成一名无所畏惧的战士，手持长矛并激励被称为狂战士的无所畏惧的人类战士。奥丁不仅是一位凶猛的战士，也是最智慧的神，他拥有一双可以汲取智慧之泉的眼睛。[394]雅各布·格林, 日耳曼神话 （华盛顿特区：Scott-Townsend，1997 年），第 15-18 页。 马修斯被他所看到的强大而白人的上帝所吸引，这与殉道的犹太耶稣形成鲜明对比。他不想与一个以温柔而闻名的宗教——基督教——联系在一起。[395]请参阅霍华德·布沙特、约翰·克雷格和迈拉·巴恩斯， 上帝的士兵：白人至上主义者和他们的圣战 美国 （纽约：Pinnacle，1999 年），第 211 页。 XNUMX. 我向皮尔斯提到，我可以理解挥舞着长矛或战斧的高大魁梧、留着胡须的维京人形象会如何吸引某些人。

“好吧，我能理解维京人拿着战斧冲进修道院，劈开僧侣的头骨，从祭坛上抓起一个银色十字架，然后将其熔化制成手镯的想法是多么有吸引力，”皮尔斯回答道。 “但是，实际上，这是一幅非常片面的画面。劫掠是维京人众多活动中的一项，当然维京人只是欧洲文化和文明的一部分。尽管我会说，我对维京形象的理解远胜于十字架的整个概念，因为十字架作为宗教的象征似乎很陌生。一个人被挂在十字架上，被钉在十字架上。这对我来说似乎很奇怪。我很难对此产生好感。对我来说，这看起来不像欧洲人。只有具有真正外星人心态的人才会选择这样的东西作为宗教的象征。这是一个行刑场景。这就像如果我要创立一个新的宗教，并选择一个挂在绞刑架上的人作为象征，或者在一个铁笼子里，乌鸦啄食他的骨骼。异教的主要象征之一是生命之树，它被称为世界树，代表了他们独特的宇宙观。你听说过吗？ [我没有。] 对我来说，世界树对于我们人民来说是一个更合适的宗教象征。”

我后来了解到，世界树象征着地球上不断创造新生命的力量和生物，这些力量和生物将它的根部撕裂，而根部自始至终都保持常青。世界树也代表着大自然是人类滋养和治愈的源泉。[396]人力资源埃利斯·戴维森， 异教的神话和符号 欧洲: 早期斯堪的纳维亚和凯尔特宗教 （纽约州锡拉丘兹：锡拉丘兹大学出版社，1988 年），第 70-71 页。 我可以理解皮尔斯为何提出这张图片，因为它反映了他自己的参照系。世界树符号关注的是这个尘世世界以及人类对自然的嵌入和依赖。此外，还有在斗争和逆境中更新和成长的主题。我断定，这很像皮尔斯的代表。

“坦率地说，”皮尔斯继续说道，“我在基督教中看不到任何好的或有用的东西。有很多人说：‘如果没有基督教，我们会怎样？如果没有基督教，我们就会互相强奸和杀害。好吧，我们就是这样互相强奸和杀害。事实是，在基督教占主导地位之前，欧洲人通过建立社区的方式几乎控制了此类事情。他们制定了对他们的生存和生活方式有意义的规则，并且这些规则得到执行，或多或少的人们尊重这些规则。不必有某种超自然的制裁来让人们遵守规矩。

“我经常引用的一件事是因为我认为它很重要，它来自北欧非基督教著作，内容是这样的：‘牛会死，亲戚会死，所以一个人自己也必须死。但我知道有一件事永远不会消亡，那就是死者事迹的名声。” [这是来自 哈瓦玛，一组由不知名的挪威诗人在公元 800 至 1100 年间创作的不连贯、零散的诗歌[397]请参阅亨利·亚当斯·贝洛斯 (Henry Adams Bellows) 翻译， 诗意的艾达 （纽约：Biblo 和 Tannen，1969 年），第 44 页。 XNUMX.] 这里的“名声”并不意味着我们今天所认为的名声——臭名昭著，让人们知道你是谁，成为名人。在这种情况下，名声意味着你的声誉，你在世时给世界和同胞留下的印象。如果你以一种值得的方式生活，你的人民就会世世代代记住你，因为你做过伟大的事情，或者非常聪明，或者正义或者勇敢，无论是什么。这是唯一真实的不朽，而且是一种对人们很重要并真正影响他们生活方式的不朽。你不需要死后永生的承诺来让人们成为好人。

“Something you might find useful is a translation of a booklet I published in my magazine written in the 1930s or early ‘40s called The Voice of Our Ancestors which gets at an aspect of the European spirit. Let me see if I can find it and you can look it over when you get the time.”

Pierce rummaged through a pile of assorted papers, letters, reports, and magazines and quickly pulled out the copy of 国民先锋队 magazine he was looking for. It always surprised me how fast he could locate what he wanted amid what seemed to be the disarray in his office.

“Here it is. Go ahead and take it with you.”

Later that night I read the Voice of Our Ancestors 的问题 国民先锋队 Pierce gave me.[398]Wulf Soerenson, “The Voices of Our Ancestors,” 国民先锋队, no. 107, Oct.-Nov. 1986, pp. 18-27. It was written by a Wulf Soerensen—nobody I had ever heard of—and describes the thoughts of a man, I assume Soerensen himself, while gazing at miniature portraits of his ancestors from many generations back. He remarks to himself how little he knows about them and how little real connection he feels with them. He speculates that likely he is not an exception in that regard. “People today don’t even know the birth dates and death dates of their own parents,” he writes. “Of course they’re written down somewhere….Earlier—much earlier [he means before the predominance of Christianity in Europe]—things were different…That was a time when the living flow of blood from father to grandfather and great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather still had not been cut off. It had not yet sunk, as it has today, so deep beneath alien spiritual baggage that most of us can no longer hear its rustle…”[399]同上，第。 18。
(Wulf Soerenson, “The Voices of Our Ancestors,” 国民先锋队, no. 107, Oct.-Nov. 1986, pp. 18-27.)

The man then refers to the time when “Rome” (the Christian church) “cracked its whip over our land” and “overwhelmed the manifestation of our true nature.” “Thus it happened that our people no longer could understand the voice of our ancestors, that we went astray for many centuries, becoming more and more alienated from our own ways….Only he who bears his own soul, living and burning in his breast, is an individual, is a master. And he who abandons his own kind is a slave.”[400]同上，第。 19。
(Wulf Soerenson, “The Voices of Our Ancestors,” 国民先锋队, no. 107, Oct.-Nov. 1986, pp. 18-27.)

As I read this writer’s obvious anger and resentment, I was reminded of the similar expressions by Native Americans and those from the Third World about Christian missionaries I had heard and read. I was taken by the fact that this time it came from a European.

To such men [as his distant forebears], the commandments from Sinai were offered as guiding lights for their lives! Isn’t it understandable that they raised their swords in anger when the monks told them they were “born in sin”—these best of the Goths, whose very name means “the good ones”? Can’t one understand the unspeakable contempt with which these noble men regarded those who promised them a reward in heaven for abstaining from doing things which were beneath the dignity even of animals? To such men the commandments were brought: men who infinitely surpassed in human dignity and morality the monks who brought them. For countless generations they had been sky-high above the moral flatlands on which the commandments from Sinai operated. Thousands of years before the time of the “savior” the monks claimed to represent, our ancestors had sown the seeds of culture and civilization throughout the world on long, seminal voyages and wanderings.[401]同上。
(Wulf Soerenson, “The Voices of Our Ancestors,” 国民先锋队, no. 107, Oct.-Nov. 1986, pp. 18-27.)

The writer imagines his pre-Christian ancestors as not knowing how to “beg” (pray):

They were too strong and proud—and too healthy—for supplication….They wanted nothing given to them; either they already had everything they wanted, or, if they lacked something, they got it for themselves. Their religion was a saying as brief as a wink and as clear and deep as a mountain steam: “Do right and fear no one.” As for the rest of it, it wasn’t really necessary to put into words, which suited a people who were naturally stingy with their words anyway. They carried that part of their religion inside them, and it served them like a compass needle which always steers a boat on its proper course. Wasn’t that a better religion than one which must be written down in a book, lest it be forgotten—and which one cannot properly understand until a priest comes and interprets what is written there? And even then an act of faith is required to believe that this intricate interpretation is correct.…It is something we are supposed to believe is true, but of which no one can be certain and which most of us silently renounce, because it is contrary to Nature and to reason. We want once again to be free of sin—from birth onward—like our ancestors were. We are tired of being humble and small and weak and all the other things demanded of us by a god who despises his own creations and looks on the world as a sink of corruption. We want to be proud again, and great and strong, and to do things for ourselves![402]同上，第19-20页。
(Wulf Soerenson, “The Voices of Our Ancestors,” 国民先锋队, no. 107, Oct.-Nov. 1986, pp. 18-27.)

When I finished reading the 国民先锋队 issue containing the Soerensen writing, I tossed it onto a dresser and it fell open to the letters-to-the-editor page. One of the letters caught my eye, and I stood there and read it. The anonymous writer referring to Christianity expressed the desire to “throw the whole thing out and start over from scratch with the sun, the moon, Odin, Thor, and all the other wild and beautiful forces in the majestic world of Nature.”[403]同上，第。 2。
(Wulf Soerenson, “The Voices of Our Ancestors,” 国民先锋队, no. 107, Oct.-Nov. 1986, pp. 18-27.) As I thought about it, that got at the heart of the issue.

I had decided that one section of the Pierce book would be presentations of topics or themes Pierce has been emphasizing in recent years. I would go through these areas one by one after I had established a context that would put them in perspective—after I had gone over Pierce’s personal history and basic view of things. I wrote down a list of topics that seemed to capture what Pierce has been focusing on in his radio broadcasts and writings: the Jewish control of the news and entertainment outlets, white racial identity and commitment, immigration and the “browning of America,” the globalization of the economy, the failures of white leadership and the limits of mass democracy, public school inadequacies, and how contemporary gender roles were off-base.

I decided the next step was to go through my list with Pierce to see if he saw the categories in the same way I did. When I had finished reading through what I had on the sheet of paper, Pierce quickly offered, “Don’t forget the historical theme. I have been very concerned about World War II and its impact on things since.”

Yes, of course. Not only should it have been on the list, it should have been 第一 on the list. Pierce is engrossed in the World War II period. It is all grounded there for him. Undoubtedly that is due in large part to the connection he feels with Hitler and National Socialism. But the most powerful stimulus behind Pierce’s consuming interest in the World War II era, I believe, is his fervent conviction that this was a monumentally important turning point in the course of Western history. As he sees it, the direction cultural and political events of Europe and America have taken over the past half-century were set in motion by that war. Pierce thinks that if we—and by “we” he means white people—are to understand our time we are going to have to get beyond the official version of what World War II was about and take a hard look at what really happened back then, and he is encouraging people to do just that. He sees himself in a tough battle in getting them to do it, however, because he is convinced that there are powerful forces in our society that make any questioning of the prevailing interpretation of those years, and any suggestion of an alternative account a highly unwelcome and even condemned and punished, undertaking.

During the time I was in West Virginia, Pierce was savoring a book entitled 克里姆林宫之狼 by Stuart Kahan.[404]Stuart Kahan, 克里姆林宫之狼 (London: Hale, 1989). I assume Bob DeMarais steered him to the book. Bob takes on the role of recommending titles to Pierce. Pierce had mentioned 克里姆林宫之狼 to me several times, and it was readily apparent to me that he was having a great time with the book. It was about a right-hand man of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin by the name of Lazar Kaganovich. Kaganovich, Pierce told me, was the most powerful Jew in the Soviet Union from the late 1920s through the ’30s. In 1929 Stalin put him in charge of supervising the collectivization of Soviet agriculture. According to Pierce, Kaganovich came to be known as the “Butcher of the Ukraine.”

After I left the property, I read an article by Pierce, published in his 自由言论 magazine, which deals with Kaganovich. Like everything in 自由言论, the Kaganovich piece was based on a transcript of one of Pierce’s radio programs. I also read three other of Pierce’s 自由言论 articles that have to do with World War II. All of the articles, including the one on Kaganovich, begin with an account of an atrocity—the first three by the Soviets and the last by Moroccans who were fighting on the side of the Allies—and then go from there to an explication of Pierce’s conception of that period in history. After going through these writings, I have a better understanding of what Pierce was getting at in his references to Kaganovich during his conversations with me, as well as Pierce’s overall perspective on World War II. In these next pages, I will weave these four writings together to try to capture Pierce’s view of this time in history and its current significance.

Pierce’s Kaganovich article in 自由言论 is called “The Genocide at Vinnitsa.”[405]William Pierce, “The Genocide at Vinnitsa,” 自由言论, vol. 4, no. 7, July 1998. pp.12-15. Vinnitsa is a city of one hundred thousand people in the Ukraine, which at that time, of course, was a part of the Soviet Union. According to Pierce’s account, Germany had invaded the Soviet Union with the aim of destroying communism. Note Pierce’s conception of the struggle—Germany was fighting communism. The German army had pushed far into the Soviet Union and had, in Pierce’s words, “liberated all of the Ukraine from the communists.” Pierce tells us that Ukrainian officials in Vinnitsa told the Germans when they arrived that five years earlier the NKVD (which Pierce describes as the Soviet secret police and a counterpart to our FBI) had executed a number of Ukrainian civilians—farmers and workers and a few civil servants and priests.

The Germans investigated these allegations and proceeded to dig up 9, 439 corpses in mass graves in a nearby park and orchard. The bodies of the men had their hands tied behind their back. All of the victims had been shot in the back of the neck with a .22-caliber pistol. Pierce tells us that this was a trademark method and weapon of the NKVD. While the men were clothed, many of the young women were unclothed. The Germans estimated that in addition to the over nine thousand bodies they were able to find, there were another three thousand buried in that vicinity that they didn’t find. The relatives of the dead said that the individuals who had been arrested in those years weren’t criminals in any conventional sense but rather were charged with being “enemies of the people” by the NKVD and imprisoned.

As I read Pierce’s account of the killings, I had questions about the method of killing. Would they shoot prisoners in the neck? Wouldn’t they shoot them in the skull? I asked Pierce about that. “The NKVD executioners,” he replied, “shot prisoners in the base of the skull, right at the top of the spine, so that the bullet would destroy the medulla oblongata, which is the most primitive part of the brain, controlling respiration and heartbeat. This caused certain and immediate death, whereas a shot higher into the head would damage the cerebrum, which controls higher functions, but might not kill the victim. Some writers describe the shot into the base of the skull as a ‘neck shot,’ but it was really a shot into the lower part of the skull, where the head is attached to the neck.”

Ukrainians, Pierce writes, possessed an independent and nationalistic spirit and wanted no part of the Soviet Union from the earliest days after the Bolsheviks came to power following the Russian revolution in 1917. The Ukraine was the stronghold of kulaks—independent farmers and small landowners. The kulaks didn’t take to collectivization of agriculture, and it was Kaganovich’s job to break their spirit or eliminate them. One tactic in this overall strategy was a state-induced famine. The NKVD and Red Army troops would go from farm to farm and confiscate crops and livestock. Pierce reports that the head of the NKVD during this period was a Jew by the name of Genrikh Yagoda. Pierce claims that there was a preponderance of Jews in the NKVD. Pierce puts the number of kulaks who died of starvation in 1934 and 1935 at seven million.

There was an NKVD prison in Vinnitsa, Pierce writes. Its normal capacity was two thousand inmates, but by 1937 and 1938 it was packed with eighteen thousand prisoners. Pierce describes a nightly activity at the prison:

Throughout much of 1938 a few dozen prisoners were taken from the prison each night and driven to a nearby motor pool area. There their hands were tied behind their backs and they were led, one at a time, a few hundred feet to a concrete slab in front of a garage. The slab was used for washing vehicles, and it had a drain at one side with an iron grating over it. Just as the prisoners reached the edge of the slab they were shot in the back of the neck, so that when they fell onto the concrete their blood would run into the drain. This was what the NKVD men jokingly call mokrii robota—”wet work”—and they had had plenty of experience at “wet work.” A truck parked next to the slab kept its engine racing so that the noise of the engine would cover the sound of the shots. While the next prisoner was being led up, a couple of NKVD men would throw the corpse of the previous prisoner into the truck. When the night’s quota of victims had been murdered the truck would drive off with its load of corpses to the fenced-in park or to the nearby orchard, where new graves already were waiting. And this “wet work” went on night after night, month after month.[406]同上，第。 14。
(William Pierce, “The Genocide at Vinnitsa,” 自由言论, vol. 4, no. 7, July 1998. pp.12-15.)

Pierce then goes into why he thinks what happened so long ago in the Ukraine generally and in Vinnitsa specifically matters to us in our time. For one thing, these Ukrainians who were murdered were our people, our kinfolk, part of our race. That is importance enough, but beyond that there is the fact that very few people know anything about these events, and the question becomes, why don’t they? We hear about what happened in Auschwitz all the time, Pierce notes, but we never hear about what happened in Vinnitsa. Our attention is drawn to the Holocaust constantly, but rarely if ever is it drawn to what happened in the Ukraine. Why is that?

Pierce answers his own question. It is because the people who control the flow of information in our society are Jews, and they disseminate what they care about and what serves their interests. To Jews, the Holocaust is important because Jews died there, and the genocide in the Ukraine is not important because Gentiles died there. It is to the Jews’ advantage to keep “rubbing our noses” in the Holocaust because it makes us feel guilty. They want us to feel that we owe them something for letting this terrible thing happen to them. They are innocent and everybody else is in the wrong in one way or another. That is the image they want to project. The Jews don’t want Vinnitsa to come up because they were the guilty ones there.

The Jews have been able to paint themselves as the only victims in the war, says Pierce. It isn’t going to help their cause to divide the attention and sympathy of the American public between Auschwitz and Vinnitsa or between those who died in the Holocaust and the millions who perished in the genocide in the Ukraine. It isn’t going to help them get billions of dollars every year for Israel from the United States, military strikes against Iraq, Israel’s number one antagonist in the Middle East, whenever they want them, or to expropriate money out of the Germans, the Swiss, and others for claimed wrongs done to Jews of past generations.

If the Ukrainians controlled the news and entertainment networks in America, says Pierce, you can bet that we would have all heard about what happened in Vinnitsa and what happened to the kulaks. But the Ukrainians aren’t in control of the media, that is the point. The Ukrainians don’t control television and they don’t dominate the publishing industry. They don’t own the “纽约时报”是， “华盛顿邮报”是， “华尔街日报”, 时间, “新闻周刊”或 美国新闻与世界报道. And the Ukrainians don’t control the motion picture industry. Steven Spielberg is not Ukrainian.

We have been getting a falsified version of this time in our history, insists Pierce. It is critically important, he says, that we come to realize this and that we learn the truth about what happened back then, because what occurred during the Second World War set the direction for what has happened since, including what is going on now in the Middle East. The fundamental reality is that our government allied with the Soviet government for the purpose of destroying Germany. The Soviet communists were presented to the American public as the good guys and the Germans as the bad guys. We never heard about things like what happened in the Ukraine, or in the Katyn Forest, another outrage committed by the Soviets, or any of the other atrocities against our people by the communists because that would have gotten in the way of the program of building up the Soviet communists as worthy allies and setting us up to support and participate in the destruction of Germany.

Pierce’s mention of the KatynForest in his list of atrocities is a reference of what has become known as the Katyn Forest Massacre. The KatynForest is in western Russia. Pierce’s version of what happened there sheds more light on his conception of the Second World War and its significance.[407]William Pierce, “The Katyn Massacre,” 自由言论, vol. 4, no. 5, May 1998, pp. 6-9.

In September of 1939 Poland was attacked from the west by Germany and from the east by the Soviet Union. Pierce’s view of it is that the Germans wanted the part of western Poland that had been taken away from them after the First World War, much of which had historically been German territory. As for the Soviets, it wasn’t clear from Pierce’s writing what he considered to be their motivation, so I e-mailed him asking him to clarify his thinking about that. He replied immediately:

Soviet communism was expansionist and imperialist. Furthermore, Russia had historic claims to eastern Poland going back for centuries. In fact, between the so-called Third Partition of Poland in 1795 and the First World War, Poland didn’t even exist as an independent state. Russian nationalists never really accepted the separation of Poland from Russia after World War I and were eager to “correct” this separation.[408]5. Personal correspondence, William Pierce to Robert Griffin, February 2, 1999.

Under strong Jewish pressure, says Pierce, Britain and France declared war against Germany, ostensibly because of Germany’s invasion of Poland. What Pierce wants noted is that Britain and France chose not to declare war on the Soviet Union, who had invaded Poland just as Germany had.

The Jews in those two countries, and in the United States, says Pierce, hated Germany and wanted to destroy her, and were highly enamored of the Soviet Union. Why? Because Hitler was freeing Germany from Jewish influence. The Jews had a virtual monopoly on certain professions in Germany and on the mass media and had been distorting German culture. Hitler’s government was weeding them out of the economic and academic life of the nation and out of the arts. By 1939, two-thirds of Germany’s Jews had emigrated. In the Soviet Union, in contrast, the Jews were “riding high” as commissars and party bosses. In the U.S. and western Europe at this time, the Jews held a “deathgrip” on the mass media and were very influential behind the scenes politically, and they did everything they could to promote a pro-Soviet and anti-German posture in these countries.

In Pierce’s version of the history of this time, Hitler very much wanted to avoid a war with Britain, France, and America, for whom he felt an affinity. However, he thought that his country had been treated unconscionably by the victors in World War I, and he was dedicated to doing something about it. Hitler also hated communism and looked upon the Soviet communists as a threat to all of Europe, and he recognized their hostility to everything he represented and was trying to achieve. In the spring of 1941, massive troop buildups in the Soviet Union, as well as other internal developments there, convinced him that the USSR was going to invade Germany from the east. This circumstance coupled with Hitler’s general hostility to the Bolshevik regime in the Soviet Union prompted him to make a pre-emptive strike. German troops smashed through Poland and continued on into the Ukraine and Russia. These events set the stage for the KatynForest episode.

According to Pierce’s version of what occurred, in 1943 when the Germans entered an area near Smolensk in western Russia they heard reports from Russian civilians that a large number of prisoners had been murdered in that vicinity by the Soviet NKVD three years before. The Germans were led to a series of mounds in a wooded area known as the KatynForest about ten miles west of the city. As they did in Vinnitsa, the Germans dug into the mounds and began discovering bodies. They then called in the International Red Cross and representatives of various neutral countries. Four thousand corpses were uncovered in mass graves, and based on the information they received, the Germans estimated that eleven thousand bodies were still missing. The dead turned out to be Polish. They tended to be influential Poles—military officers, cultural and business leaders, intellectuals, and artists. Fifteen thousand of them had been rounded up by the NKVD and shot in the back of the neck.

Was the Soviet Union condemned for that atrocity? Pierce asks rhetorically. No, they weren’t. They were the “good guys,” our ally against the “awful” Germans. Unlike Vinnitsa, the American media did treat the KatynForest story some, but the spin put on it was that the Germans themselves were the ones who had perpetrated the massacre. The media and our government certainly didn’t want the public to think that our friends the Soviets were butchering civilian populations. Better that our people thought that the Germans had perpetrated the terrible deed. That would support the official line that the war must go on to free the Poles from the wicked Germans, who must be made to pay for their actions. And the war did go on, at the cost of many millions of lives and the physical devastation of Europe, and indeed the Germans were punished, and the Poles and the entire rest of Eastern Europe were turned over to Soviet domination for almost half a century.

Pierce says that now historians accept that it was the Soviets who murdered fifteen thousand of Poland’s leaders, and that it took place between March and May of 1940, fourteen months before the German invasion of the Soviet Union. You can read about it in libraries. An example is the book Death in the Forest: The Story of the Katyn Forest Massacre by J.K. Zowodny.[409]Janusz Kazimierz Zawodny, Death in the 森林: 的故事 卡廷森林 屠杀 （纽约：Hippocrene Books，1988）。 But don’t hold your breath waiting for any Hollywood movies about this atrocity, Pierce cautions.

And then there was what happened to German civilians at the hands of Soviet military units in East Prussia after the war. Pierce writes:

Often the men…were simply murdered on the spot. The women were, almost without exception, gang-raped. This was the fate of girls as young as eight years old and old women in their eighties, as well as women in the advanced stages of pregnancy. Women who resisted rape had their throats cut or were shot. Very often women were murdered after being gang-raped. Many women and girls were raped so often and so brutally that they died from this abuse alone.[410]William Pierce, “Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff.” 自由言论, vol. 4, no. 3, March 1998, p. 2.

Pierce quotes a directive to Soviet troops from a Jewish Soviet commissar by the name of Ilya Ehrenburg:

Kill! Kill! In the German race there is nothing but evil; not one among the living, not one among the yet unborn but is evil! Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill, you gallant soldiers of the Red Army.[411]同上。
(William Pierce, “Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff.” 自由言论, vol. 4, no. 3, March 1998, p. 2.)

By no means were all Soviet soldiers butchers and rapists, notes Pierce. For instance, there was a captain in the Red Army by the name of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who was in Germany in 1945. Captain Solzhenitsyn wrote about a scene he witnessed in the town of Neidenberg:

Twenty-two Hoeringstrasse. It’s not been burned, just looted, rifled. A moaning by the walls, half muffled: the mother’s wounded, still alive. The little daughter’s on the mattress, dead. How many have been in on it? A platoon, a company perhaps? A girl’s been turned into a woman, a woman turned into a corpse….[412]同上。
(William Pierce, “Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff.” 自由言论, vol. 4, no. 3, March 1998, p. 2.)

Pierce claims that the Jews don’t want us to know what happened to the Germans after World War II. Or, for that matter, during it—he gives as an example the fire-bombing by the Allies of the civilian German population in the city of Dresden.[413]William Pierce, “Democracy,” 自由言论, vol. 4, no. 7, July 1998, p. 1. The Jews don’t want us to see that the Germans were victims too. The Jews suffered and the Germans didn’t—that is what they want us to think. Similarly, the Jews don’t want us to think about the millions of others of our people who died at the hands of the communists in the Ukraine and in the Siberian gulags.[414]It is estimated that 2.7 million people perished in the Soviet penal system under Stalin. Source: Otto Pohl, The Stalinist Penal System: A Statistical History of Soviet Repression and Terror, 1930-1953 (Jefferson, NC: 1997), p. 131. See also: Robert Conquest’s books on the Soviet penal system. We are told that children in school have to learn about the Holocaust because it was the greatest crime against mankind in history. But the genocidal atrocities against our people matter too, Pierce writes. The truth of it is that many persons besides the Jews suffered enormously in that catastrophe known as World War II.

But for the lies we were told, says Pierce, we would have never allowed ourselves to become involved in the war in Europe, even with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. If the information we received had not been so controlled and so slanted, so biased, perhaps Eastern Europe wouldn’t have wound up in the hands of the Soviets to be plundered for so long. If we had known something other than the story we had been fed, perhaps communism would have been crushed in Europe decades before it was. And perhaps Korea and Vietnam wouldn’t have happened, and the one hundred thousand of our best men who perished in those conflicts would never have died. And perhaps we wouldn’t be pouring billions of dollars every year into propping up Israel and doing its bidding in the Middle East and alienating the Arab nations in the process. But we didn’t hear the truth then, just as we aren’t hearing the truth now.

White people ought to be concerned when any part of our history is suppressed from us, says Pierce. We ought to find out why it happened and how it happened. If we understand things like Vinnitsa and Katyn, it might help us ensure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen in the future. Understanding these obscure events that took place so long ago might contribute to a realization among us that we can’t trust the mass media, or the government in Washington that dances to the tune of the Jews.

Pierce says he knows that his message is not a welcome one to many Americans, but nevertheless he believes Americans need to hear it:

There were a lot of decent Americans who fought in the war in Europe, anti-Communist Americans, and many of them don’t want to think about the fact that they fought on the wrong side….I believe that knowing the truth…is far more important than protecting our carefully nurtured belief that we were on the side of righteousness. I believe that understanding how we were deceived in the past is necessary if we are to avoid being deceived in the future.[415]Pierce, “Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff,” p. 4.

But while Americans need to hear this alternative perspective on the war, there are many, according to Pierce, who would keep them from hearing it. If he had written or said any of this in Canada or Britain it would have been labeled hate speech and he would have been shut up immediately. This could happen in this country, says Pierce, if those who don’t want what he says to be allowed expression have their way. Pierce acknowledges that those who want to make sure that people like him are silenced are articulate and highly persuasive in their arguments, and many well-intended people support them in their efforts. But see through what they are up to, implores Pierce, and don’t let them get away with it.

I mentioned to Bob DeMarais that World War II had come up in my conversations with Pierce. He reached over to a table next to his desk and picked up a book and handed it to me. “Have you read this?” he asked. “It is about some women who opposed America’s involvement in World War II. Why don’t you take it with you?”

I thanked Bob and went on my way.

The book Bob gave me was entitled 极右翼女性 by Glen Jeansonne.[416]Glen Jeansonne, Women of the Far Right: The Mothers’ Movement and World War II （芝加哥：芝加哥大学出版社，1996）。 The book tells the story of an organized women’s movement in the 1930s and ‘40s that centered its efforts around opposing America’s involvement in World War II. Jeansonne provides sketches of the women who led this movement and the organizations they created. It quickly came home to me that this was no minor phenomenon I was reading about: at its peak, the confederation of woman’s groups that conducted this campaign against the Roosevelt administration and its supporters had a membership of six million members.[417]同上，第。 1。
(Glen Jeansonne, Women of the Far Right: The Mothers’ Movement and World War II （芝加哥：芝加哥大学出版社，1996 年）。 I was staggered to read those numbers. I had always associated large-scale anti-war activity with Vietnam. My image of World War II, in contrast, was that of the Good War that everybody, or just about everybody, supported. What I was learning in the Jeansonne book cut some holes in that picture I was carrying around in my head.

Also, as I read along in the book I was increasingly taken by the fact that I had never heard of any of these women. After I left West Virginia I found out that I wasn’t alone. I mentioned some of these women’s names to several generally informed people, and they hadn’t heard of them either. It appears that even though these women were well known in their day they have been blotted out of mainstream history. They are not part of the story of this country that we have been told and that we share as a people. Reading the Jeansonne book raised the question for me of how that happened, and it got me thinking about what difference it makes now that for all practical purposes these women never existed.

Although the women depicted in the book saw themselves as champions of woman, they stood out in stark contrast to today’s feminists. One obvious difference is that their reactionary politics is on the opposite side of the political spectrum from the vast majority of modern feminists, who tend to be on the left in varying degrees. These earlier women were highly nationalistic and patriotic. They were ardently anti-Communist and pro-capitalist, and their political antipathies and allegiances were at the forefront of their personal and organizational agendas; that is to say, they were more than advocates for women. As they saw it, gender issues were embedded in larger socio-political concerns and needed to be confronted within this broader context. As well, their orientation was in the first instance maternal. They saw themselves as mothers, they approached things from that perspective. Only mothers, they believed, could save their sons from the slaughter in the war that was impending. Also, these women supported sexual abstinence before marriage, and they upheld the traditional nuclear family, which in their eyes included a strong and vital patriarchal presence. These women didn’t set themselves off against men. Men, their husbands and sons and other men, weren’t “them” to these women, they were part of “us.” These women didn’t paint men as oppressors or competitors or adversaries, or see them as needing to be held in check or re-conditioned. Another difference, in contrast to feminism’s coolness toward organized religion, these women tended to be avowed Christians. A last contrast: while Jewish women have been disproportionately represented in today’s women’s movement,[418]F. Caroline Graglia, Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism (Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 1998), pp. 40-43. these earlier women were markedly anti-Jewish in their attitudes.

The first mothers’ organization was formed in 1939 just after Germany invaded Poland and Britain entered the war. Three mothers of draft-age sons—Frances Sherrill, Mary Sheldon, and Mary Ireland—started a group called the National Legion of Mothers of America. The purpose of this new organization was to oppose the use of United States troops except for defending this country from attack. By the end the first week, ten thousand women had joined up. One of the new recruits was quoted as saying, “I have a 21-year-old son and I am going to fight for him. It was too much trouble to bring him into the world and bring him up all these years to have him fight the battles of foreign nations.”[419]Jeansonne, p. 5. By 1941, the NLMA claimed four million members.[420]同上，第。 46。
(Jeansonne, p. 5.)

The most prominent woman to emerge on the far right during these years was Elizabeth Dilling. Dilling described herself as a “super patriot,” and said that the real threat in Europe to us wasn’t fascism but communism. Dilling’s anti-communism took on racial overtones, as she claimed that the “interracial idea,” as she referred to it, was one of the strongest dogmas of socialism-communism. She said that the left promotes interracial sex, and that if they get their way the races will be molded into “one big mass.”[421]同上，第。 27。
(Jeansonne, p. 5.) Dilling contended that the left had duped everybody into seeing fascism as the big enemy when in fact it defended property, supported religion, promoted class harmony, battled communism, and presented no threat to us. As far as Dilling was concerned, getting into the European war on the side of the communists in the Soviet Union was joining forces with precisely the wrong side in the conflict, and that in any case sending our boys across the ocean to fight in a European war would result in young lives being lost, disruption to family life, and a strain to the social fabric of this country.

Dilling was very hostile to the woman’s movement on the left, which, she argued, had “tried to get women enthusiastically to prefer bricklaying to feminine pursuits.” She also became increasingly hostile to Jews. She claimed that that “no one with open eyes can observe a Red parade, a communist, anarchist, socialist, or radical meeting anywhere in the world without noting the prominence of Jewry.”[422]同上，第。 26。
(Jeansonne, p. 5.) Referring to Emma Goldman, the leftist Jewish atheist, Dilling asked, “Have women like me who believe in beautiful Christian ideals the right to sit in their rose-shaded living rooms while the Emma Goldmans fill the platforms with their dirt and anti-American ideas?”[423]同上，第。 16。
(Jeansonne, p. 5.)

Dilling toiled from early morning to midnight every day of the week at the cause she had taken to heart. She wrote and toured the country tirelessly, and by 1939 audiences for her lectures and speeches had grown from hundreds to electrified thousands.[424]同上。
(Jeansonne, p. 5.) In opposition to the Lend Lease Act (legislation which provided American arms to the British and, in her eyes, paved the way to sending our boys to die in Europe), Dilling led a parade down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. Women marched in twos and carried banners that said “Kill Bill 1776 [the Lend Lease Act] Not Our Boys.” A mass rally followed the march. Among Dilling’s other activities in opposition to the war that she was sure was coming, she organized a demonstration of twenty-five women outside of the office of a senator who was reputed to want the war. When the women sat down and refused to leave, Dilling and one other woman were arrested and the others ejected from the corridor. Dilling was later convicted of disorderly conduct for the incident.[425]同上，第。 78。
(Jeansonne, p. 5.)

While World War II was in process, Dilling was given to say things like, “Any professed servant of Christ who could aid the church-burning, clergy-murdering, God-hating Soviet regime belongs either in the ranks of the blind leaders of the blind or in the ancient and dishonorable order of Judas.”[426]同上，第。 155。
(Jeansonne, p. 5.) This sort of thing got her arrested and brought to trial for violating the Sedition and Smith acts, namely undermining the morale of the armed forces in wartime. The case was eventually dismissed, but it did serve the purpose of putting a crimp in Dilling’s activities by tying up her time and draining her financial resources as she had to come up with legal fees and the other costs of a trial far from home.[427]同上。
(Jeansonne, p. 5.) After the war, Dilling kept on going, crusading against communism, racial integration, the income tax, and the growing power of the federal government until her death in 1969.[428]同上，第。 166。
(Jeansonne, p. 5.)

Catherine Curtis was another prominent woman on the extreme right during these years. Curtis was considered to be the most effective organizer among women of her ideological stripe, and she became the leader of the coalition that included the National Legion of Mothers of America.[429]同上，第。 4。
(Jeansonne, p. 5.) Curtis argued that getting into a war would involve mothers turning their sons over to the government and would negate their work of nurturing their boys from cradle to the grave.[430]同上，第。 63。
(Jeansonne, p. 5.) She shared with the others in this movement an antipathy toward Jews, whom she saw as dominating banking, politics, and the entertainment industry to the detriment of the rest of the country.[431]同上，第。 70。
(Jeansonne, p. 5.)

In 1935 Curtis founded the Women Investors of America. This organization tied rightist ideology to the achievement of women’s rights and sponsored talks by Curtis and others on financial matters. Curtis looked upon the development of woman’s financial capabilities not as a way for women to achieve independence of men or family but rather as a means of guarding and augmenting the family pocketbook. She also thought that woman’s financial expertise could guard the nation’s pocketbook as well, and thus serve as a buffer against communism.

And there was Lyrl Clark Van Hyning. By the early 1940s, Van Hyning’s organization, We the Mothers of America, had one hundred and fifty thousand members nationwide. Its male auxiliary was called We the Fathers of America.[432]同上，第。 87。
(Jeansonne, p. 5.) Van Hyning reflected the anti-Semitism characteristic of this group of women, as she blamed Jewish international bankers for getting the United States into the war and circulated a recall petition against members of Congress she said were responsible for doing their bidding. Van Hyning strongly opposed the Normandy invasion in 1944, an event that has been brought back to the nation’s attention in recent years by Steven Spielberg’s film, 拯救大兵瑞恩. A few weeks before the invasion Van Hyning said, “Those boys who will be forced to throw their young flesh against that impregnable wall of steel are the same babies mothers cherished and comforted and brought to manhood. Mother’s kiss healed all hurts of childhood. But on invasion day no kiss can heal the terrible hurts and mother won’t be there. Mothers have betrayed their sons to the butchers.”[433]同上，第。 94。
(Jeansonne, p. 5.) Reading this passage, a contrasting image to Van Hyning’s stridency and defiance came to my mind: the Iowa mother in the Spielberg film who lay crumpled on the floor at the feet of military personnel who had just informed her that three of her sons had been killed in the war.

Modern feminists have nothing good to say about women like Dilling, Curtis, and Van Hyning. To them, it is virtually inconceivable that women would presume to link right-wing ideology and political activity with the promotion of women’s rights. When they speak of these kinds of women at all, they paint them as dupes of males and betrayers of the true interests of women. Gerda Lerner has stated that these sorts of women have internalized the idea of their inferiority, and that this has led them to participate in their own subordination. Hester Eisenstein says that they have been brainwashed to believe they need men to protect them. A third contemporary feminist, Andrea Dworkin, calls them reprehensible.[434]同上，第。 184。
(Jeansonne, p. 5.)

But there is still the overwhelming reality of the Holocaust. Apart from anything else, didn’t that horror make any view other than the war as a victory of good over evil beside the point? I needed to hear what Pierce would say about this. “Most people who hear your criticism of our involvement in World War II or your condemnation to the Jews will very quickly dismiss you with a reference to the Holocaust. Of course that is why we were in Europe, to put an end to the Holocaust. I just read Alan Dershowitz’ book CHUTZPAH,[435]艾伦·德肖维兹（Alan Dershowitz）， CHUTZPAH （波士顿：小，布朗，1991）。 and he labels a bigot anyone who denies the accepted version of six million Jews being killed and the use of gas chambers as means of extermination. What is your perception of the Holocaust?”

“Before I began reading a lot of history when I was on the faculty at OregonStateUniversity,” Pierce answered me, “I had a generally sympathetic attitude toward Jews. I had accepted the Hollywood propaganda line that the Nazis were terrible creatures who took all these sensitive, violin-playing, philosophizing, poetizing, harmless people and brutalized and killed them—six million of them. But then I started reading some books that weren’t on the approved reading list. One of the books as I remember was put out by a Catholic social agency in Germany or Austria and it was about the atrocities committed against German civilians after the war—I think it was called The Tragedy of Silesia. [I later found the book, edited by Johannes Kaps and published in Munich in 1952.[436]Johannes Kaps, ed., 的悲剧 西里西亚, 1945-46 (Munich: Christ Unterwegs, 1952).] The book was written by priests and has first-person, eyewitness accounts of what happened to Germans after the war, horrible stuff—whole families being raped and their throats cut, children tortured to death by drunken Red Army soldiers, that kind of thing, on a massive scale. It hit me that I hadn’t been exposed to that kind of information before, and it led me to read other things. I came away from this with a much broader perspective on atrocity and genocide during this period of the 1940s than I had had before.

“I remember a photograph in 生活 magazine of a fifteen-year-old girl who had just been gang-raped by a group of Poles on a train bearing German expellees from the eastern territories. I have that photograph in my files to this day because it so struck me when I saw it and read the caption under it. It turns out that hundreds of thousands of German girls were raped. Why, I wondered, when all these terrible things happened do we only hear about what happened to the Jews? I had never heard of what happened to the Germans until I dug material out of the back shelves of libraries. It certainly wasn’t on television. Schools weren’t talking about it in history classes. The answer I came to in response to my own question is that we don’t hear about what happened to the Germans because the Jews don’t want us to, and with the power they have over the media and the power they have politically they are able to publicize and capitalize on what happened to them and suppress information about what happened to anybody else. The result is they have a monopoly on victim status, and that is a good card to have in your hand.

“The next question I asked myself was, if the Jews have the power to control what people learn about who got raped or killed during that time, they don’t absolutely have to be telling the truth; who is going to challenge them? So I began looking into the details of the Holocaust. Of course, it is a lifetime job to try to get at the bottom of that situation and figure out exactly what happened, but I did find what I took to be credible evidence that some of the Holocaust stories were simple lies. I came to the conclusion that the Holocaust story isn’t wholly true. So then the big question is: what parts are true and what parts aren’t? And the only way to get at that is to deal with it piece by piece. You have to take a particular claim—‘I saw them gas ten thousand Jews on March 19th,’ or whatever—and look at the evidence: could this have happened? did it happen? And if it didn’t happen as the story had it, what did happen? Each one of these is a full-fledged project for some historian or graduate student.

“I learned about enough things that had been falsified, exaggerated, or distorted that I became what Mr. Dershowitz would call a Holocaust denier. Actually, I think that is a deliberate misnomer. Because I don’t deny that Jews were killed. The Germans wanted to get rid of the Jews. They started by forcing them to emigrate as soon as Hitler became Chancellor by passing various exclusionary laws that cut Jews out of one sector of German life after another. Jews couldn’t publish newspapers except ones for their fellow Jews. They couldn’t teach in regular schools, only in Jewish schools. Jewish attorneys could only have practices serving their fellow Jews. The result was that before the war started two-thirds of German Jews had left the country. And that was really Hitler’s aim. He may have had a secret desire to cut a few Jewish throats, but his main goal was to get them out of Germany and off the Germans’ backs so that Germans could do things their own way.

“And then of course the war came along and a lot of Jews did end up in concentration camps. And some Jews were executed—particularly in the east—and many Jews died of typhus and malnutrition. I have personally talked to Germans who participated in shootings of Jews in the east. And these included mass shootings, often done in reprisal for something that had occurred. Germans would put Jews into ghettos in Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian areas. Jewish partisans would kill a German soldier or something, and a hundred Jews would be rounded up and shot. But never once did I talk to a German who knew anything about gas chambers as execution devices. And these were people that I am certain trusted me and talked frankly with me.

“So I am not a denier in the way I would define a Holocaust denier, but I do not believe the Holocaust in its official version. And it is clear to me that this official version is very important to the Jews, and it is not because of justice. It is because they can exploit the victim status it grants them because of the guilt it generates in the rest of us: ‘Oh, we let this happen to these poor people. How can we compensate them? It would be unfair to criticize them for anything they do because they have suffered so much. We have to give the Jews anything they want.’ This has been drilled into our people and Jews take advantage of it. I can understand why they get frantic if anybody dares to say, ‘Hey, did this really happen the way you describe?’ They shout, ‘He’s a denier. He must be punished! He must apologize!'”

“Is there anything that leads you to believe that there was a policy of extermination? There was a conference in 1942, I think it was, attended by Eichmann and others, where it is said it was decided.”

“I presume that most of what took place on the German side during the war except for perhaps the very last days was based on policy. The Germans had the best disciplined army, and they were not inclined to do things unless they had a policy—let’s say that in the event of German soldiers being killed by partisans you may or must or should take so many Jews from the ghetto and have them dig a trench outside of town and then shoot them. The British historian David Irving has said that there is no evidence that there was any policy for the general extermination of the Jews. That makes sense to me because, while we don’t hear about it, there were a lot of Jews who lived in Germany throughout the war, and everybody knew they were Jews and yet nobody bothered them. If there were a policy of general extermination, those would be the ones who would have been rounded up first, and they weren’t at all.

“I haven’t seen any credible evidence to support the Auschwitz picture Steven Spielberg has painted. The gas chambers we know about were de-lousing chambers; they were used for sanitation purposes. The crematoria of the sort that were at Auschwitz were also found at every other prison or work camp, and nobody is contending that gassings were going on in all these other places. People died in these places, and corpses were cremated. But certainly the crematoria that existed at Auschwitz could not have processed the incredible number of bodies the Jews claim were handled in this way. They have said that four-and-a-half million were killed in Auschwitz—simple arithmetic shows that it couldn’t have happened that way. Confronted with that, the Jews say, ‘Oh, well, OK, so they didn’t dispose of all the bodies in the crematoria. They threw the bodies into big pits they had dug and set fire to them.’ Perhaps, but I haven’t seen credible evidence of that. I have seen photographs of Germans shooting Jewish and non-Jewish partisans. Why are there no credible photographs of Jews being gassed? All we have is a collection of stories.

“The Germans had two types of camps: concentration camps like the ones we had in this country for the Japanese where elements of the population they considered hostile or dangerous were concentrated so they could be dealt with without posing a general threat to the rest, and work camps. Auschwitz was primarily a work camp where they produced synthetic rubber. To me, the concept of a death camp doesn’t make sense. If extermination were in fact the policy and I were in charge of implementing it, I don’t think I would go to all the effort to send people by rail from one part of Poland all the way to another part and put them in a camp to gas them. I wouldn’t bother to build barracks and other facilities. I would do what the communists did, shoot them in small batches near where they were arrested.

“My belief is that the Jews not only greatly exaggerated their losses but they embellished the details to make them more dramatic, memorable, and shocking. For example, the Jews have told about German soldiers grabbing Jewish babies by the legs and swinging their heads against brick walls. I don’t believe it. The German soldiers simply didn’t act that way to any extent at all—that is just not the kind of people they were—and certainly nothing like this happened as a matter of policy. I can imagine a rare instance where a drunken German soldier, separated from his unit and angry about the bombing of German cities, might commit an individual atrocity; but beyond that, it doesn’t fit. It is an invention to horrify Gentiles and make them think, ‘Oh, those poor Jews and those terrible Germans! How can we ever compensate for this awful thing that has happened!’

“There are these stories about Jews getting off the train at Auschwitz and a German officer walks up and down the line and says you, you, and you, go over there, to be gassed, and in some cases knocks them down on the platform and pours gasoline on them and sets them on fire. And then there are the stories of Germans throwing children off of roofs to the cobblestones below for sport, and shooting people like target practice. Doesn’t fit. An invention. But the way the Jews have it cooked up, if you question any of these stories, say, ‘Hey wait a minute, did you really see that occur? What was the date? What were the units of the German army involved?’ Try to pin it down at all, and the Jews will say ‘I can’t remember things like that,’ or ‘We weren’t allowed to look at their shoulder patches,’ or whatever. If you start to getting into the facts, the Jews get hysterical, weeping and wailing, or accusatory and try to shame you: ‘Isn’t six million enough? Are you trying to crucify us all over again?’ They want to keep it like a religion where you dare not question. It is like what went on during the Crusades. They come back in 1056 or whenever and say, ‘This is a piece from the true cross.’ Someone comes forward and says, ‘I’m not sure I believe it. Let me check it to see how old the wood is.’ He’d be stoned to death!”

“Didn’t some Germans testify after the war that they operated the gas chambers?”

“There were some notorious confessions after the war, but I think torture was involved. The commandant of Bergen-Belsen, named Hoess, signed whatever they told him to sign after they worked him over, and there were a few others. But if this really happened the way the Jews said it did, there would have been statements of all sorts—including ordinary German soldiers—and much more documentary evidence, and there isn’t. ”

“You obviously don’t accept the number of six million Jewish deaths during the war.”

“They have shuffled the numbers around a lot. At Auschwitz, the first number was four-and-a-half million, and then it was two million, and then it was one million and not all of those were Jews. Then they said that the ones they thought were killed at Auschwitz were actually killed at Treblinka or somewhere else. But six million has become the official sacred number. That is the one you hear from the media. It is rather like the doctrine of the virgin birth—believe it or else. It is very important to know what the real number is because it is part of our history, children learn about it in school, and it has influenced so many things in this country, including our support for Israel. The Jews use the six million number to get the idea across, ‘You can’t deal with us like you would anybody else because we have suffered so much, and 您 let it happen. So give us what we want, and don’t ask any questions!’ They don’t say it that blatantly, but that is the tacit message. We really do need to check it out and get at the facts.”

“I thought I read somewhere that you estimated that three-quarters of a million Jews died during the war.”

“I can make estimates, but the estimates are not based on sound, hard evidence. I have discovered that a lot of lies have been told about this. So then I have to ask myself by how much did they inflate their losses. Was it by a factor of ten? five? two? It is very difficult at this point to say.

“My point is that we ought to look at the others besides the Jews who were killed in the war too. We all know about the six million Jews who were supposedly killed in the war, but how many of us know how many American soldiers were killed, and German soldiers and civilians? And why don’t we know those figures? Are the Jewish deaths the only ones that matter? At the end of the war, ethnic Germans were expelled from Poland and Czechoslovakia, and millions of them died in the process. Millions of German POWs died in the years right after the war. Who knows about any of that?

“There are some books on our list you ought to read. One is a book by a Canadian named James Bacque that describes what happened to the German POWs after the war. Another one is called 冬季飞行 by an author by the name of Thorwald. It describes how the communists would rape and torture and kill German refugees. The deaths during that war have to be put in perspective, that’s what I am saying. We have gotten the idea that the only ones who suffered during the war were the Jews. That just isn’t the case.”[437]A book on how the events of the Holocaust have been portrayed at various times over the years which I have found useful is Peter Novick, 美国生活中的大屠杀 （波士顿：霍顿·米夫林（Houghton Mifflin），1999年。

After talking to Pierce, it came to me that I really had no idea of the magnitude of the loss of life in Europe during the World War II period, so I looked into it. For Germany, there were 4.2 million military and civilian deaths during the war, plus another 3.6 million deaths in the immediate post-war period resulting from reprisals against German military personnel, civilians, and ethnic Germans as they were being forced to vacate areas, primarily in Poland and Czechoslovakia, where they had been living. Thus there were a total of 7.8 million German deaths due to the war. Another five million Germans were wounded or permanently disabled, bringing total German casualties to 12.8 million. As for the Soviet Union, the estimate is that eighteen million people died in the war. I was unable to find the total of Soviet wounded and disabled. The United States suffered approximately one million casualties, including around three hundred thousand deaths.[438]Source of those numbers: The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, vol. 29 (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1998), p. 1022.

I was able to locate and read the Bacque book about the abuse of German POWs that Pierce mentioned. Actually, Bacque, a Canadian novelist and amateur historian, has published two books on this general topic. The first, 其他损失, was published in Toronto back in 1989, and the second, 犯罪与怜悯, was published in London in 1997.[439]James Bacque, Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners at the Hands of the French and Americans After World War II (Toronto: Stottard, 1989). James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation 1944-1950 (London: Little, Brown, 1997). Bacque’s books recount the mistreatment of two groups of Germans after World War II: the ethnic Germans who were dispossessed from areas where they had been living outside of Germany, and the German POWs in Allied prison camps.

Bacque has been unable to find a U.S. publisher for either of his books. In 1990, he told an interviewer from the Toronto Star newspaper that 其他损失 had been turned down by a total of thirty American publishers.[440]Toronto Star, May 3, 1990, E1+. Crimes and Mercies, the 1997 book, was published by Boston-based Little, Brown, but it chose to release the book through its London branch and not in this country. In the introduction of 犯罪与怜悯, Bacque thanks his London editor who, in his words, “took the courageous decision to publish this book despite the harsh opposition it is bound to arouse.”[441]Crimes and Mercies, p.xxv. Pierce says if Bacque’s book had been about the mistreatment of Jews rather than Germans he wonders how much trouble Bacque would have had getting his book published in the United States and how much harsh opposition he would have expected.

In 犯罪与怜悯, Bacque tells of the fate of 16.6 million ethnic Germans who were expelled from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary after the war, many of whom, he points out, had lived in these areas for many generations. Bacque calls it the largest ethnic cleansing the world has ever known.[442]Ibid., p. xx.
(Crimes and Mercies, p.xxv.) He says the ethnic Germans were told to leave their homes in good order and to take only one large piece of luggage and one piece of hand luggage per person with them.[443]同上，第。 99。
(Crimes and Mercies, p.xxv.) After I left West Virginia I spoke to an elderly woman now living in Canada who with her family had been among those forced to leave an area of Poland called Silesia. She confirmed what Bacque reports and added that her family was also told to leave most of their money behind—although, she told me, they did manage to get money out by hiding it on their persons.

Bacque alleges that these Germans were brutalized as they made the trek back to what was left of Germany or to concentration camps in Poland and elsewhere. He reports that 2.1 million of the ethnic Germans perished before they reached their destination.[444]同上，第。 109。
(Crimes and Mercies, p.xxv.) Bacque offers up tales of horror:[445]同上，第 102、103 和 106 页。
(Crimes and Mercies, p.xxv.)

• Of Czech guards shooting people at random.
• Of Russians raping German mothers while their small children were present.
• Of nuns being repeatedly raped.
• Of German women having their achilles tendons cut and being raped by Czech men as they lay on the ground screaming.
• Of dead children being put in coffins, five to seven children to each coffin, and buried together. The children had died with their eyes open. The certificates said the cause of death had been starvation.

As for the German POWs, Bacque reports that in American and French zones more than five million German soldiers were crowded into barbed-wire cages. One Allied POW camp was described as huts made out of chicken wire covered with tar paper. Water was supplied by a single tap inside each hut. The water was usually frozen in the winter. The prisoners slept on the muddy ground, one hundred eighty prisoners to a hut. In some camps, German prisoners were simply herded into fields and lived in the open, in holes they dug out themselves. These camps lacked even primitive sanitary facilities, and the prisoners were vastly underfed. The ground beneath them quickly became a quagmire of filth. They soon began dying of starvation and disease. “Sometimes at the roll calls in the morning,” Bacque quotes a prisoner as saying, “men fell over dead.”[446]同上，第。 49。
(Crimes and Mercies, p.xxv.) About one million of these German prisoners died in captivity, along with another half-million in Soviet camps.[447]其他损失, p. xix; 犯罪与怜悯, p. ，P。 88. XNUMX。

Bacque’s book contained pictures of these German POWs. Looking at them, I was struck by how different they looked from the image of them I had taken away from the Academy Award-nominated Steven Spielberg film, 拯救大兵瑞恩. As I remember, the German soldiers in the film were older, in their thirties it seemed, and rather dark in appearance, and they had short burr haircuts. The soldiers in the Bacque pictures, however, were much younger, teenagers and in their early twenties, and they had fair complexions, and they had light hair and it was long; I didn’t notice any clippered-top hair styles. They looked like kids to me. I pondered how it might have changed the Spielberg film if the German soldiers had looked like the POWs I was gazing upon in the Bacque book.

One of the German prisoners, a man by the name of Charles von Luttichau, testified about the conditions of one of the American camps:

The latrines were just logs flung over ditches next to the barbed were fences. To sleep, all we could do was to dig out a hole with our hands, then cling together in the hole. We were crowded very close together. Because of illness, the men had to defecate on the ground. Soon, many of us were too weak to take off our trousers first. So our clothing was infected, and so was the mud where we had to walk and sit and lie down. There was no water at all at first, except the rain, then after a couple of weeks we could get a little water from a standpipe. But most of us had nothing to carry it in, so we could get only a few mouthfuls after hours of lining up, sometimes even through the night. We had to walk between the holes on the soft earth thrown up by digging, so it was easy to fall into a hole but hard to climb out. The rain was almost constant along that part of the Rhine that spring. More than half the days we had rain. More than half the days we had no food at all. On the rest, we got a little K [food] ration. I could see from the package that they [the Americans] were giving us one tenth of the rations they issued to their own men. So in the end we got perhaps five percent of a normal US army ration. I complained to the American camp commander that he was breaking the Geneva Convention, but he said, “Forget the Convention. You haven’t any rights.” Within a few days, some of the men who had gone healthy into the camp were dead. I saw our men dragging many dead bodies to the gate of the camp, where they were thrown loose on top of each other onto trucks, which took them away.[448]其他损失, p, 38.

Among other illustrations Bacque offers of American abuse of German POWs are these:[449]The following incidents were reported in 犯罪与怜悯 on pp. 28, 29, 44, 45, 47, 52, 53, 60, and 63.

• On General Eisenhower’s initiative, the American prisoner of war camps were kept far below the standards set by the Geneva Convention. A Japanese general was shot for maintaining camps in these conditions.
• At a place called Andermach, German prisoners were trying to nourish themselves on grass. An American college professor reports he saw bodies being taken out of there “by the truckload.”
• Prisoner Hanns Scharf testified that a German woman and her two children came to an American guard in one of the camps carrying a wine bottle. She asked the guard to give the bottle to her husband who was just inside the wire. The guard took the wine, upended the bottle in his own mouth, threw it to the ground, and killed the woman’s husband with five shots.
• William Kreuznock, a Canadian, reported guards at night would shoot machine guns at random into the camp, apparently for sport. One guard at this camp wrote in his diary: “Wild shooting in the night, absolute fireworks. It must be the supposed peace. Next morning forty dead as ‘victims of the fireworks,’ in our cage alone, many wounded.”
• In one of the American camps, there were eighteen thousand one hundred deaths in a ten-week period. That was a rate of forty-three percent of the prisoners a year. In March of 1946, in a French camp, deaths peaked at twenty-five percent in one month.
• Prisoner Johannes Heising in a US camp reported that one night the Americans bulldozed living men into the earth. He is uncertain as to how many of the crowd of men were killed in the blackness of the night.
• In 1996 a mass grave was discovered near an American POW camp. An expert concluded that the bodies were dead prisoners from the American camps, ages nineteen to twenty-three. A US Army ration book smuggled out by an ex-prisoner shows that these captives were given six hundred to eight hundred fifty calories per day. The prisoners had starved.
• In Dobbs Ferry, New York, Martin Beech, a retired Unitarian minister, says, “I still experience flashbacks—starving prisoners eating grass, and thirsty men bursting through barbed wire and dashing amid gunfire toward a nearby river.”[450]多伦多 星.

Bacque concludes: “The struggle has been presented to us as ‘their’ evil against ‘our’ good, but as Solzhenitsyn wrote: ‘The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.’”[451]犯罪与怜悯，第二十三。

I was also able to find the other book Pierce had mentioned, 冬季飞行.[452]于尔根·索瓦尔德, 冬季飞行 (London: Hutchinson, 1953). It took some doing to get hold of it, since this book, as was also true of the Bacque books, was never published in this country and not readily available. As with the Bacque books, I had to go through an inter-library loan process to obtain 冬季飞行, and that took some time and effort . 冬季飞行 was written by Juergen Thorwald and was published in London back in 1953. It tells of the events on the eastern front in Europe during the last days of World War II. I could see why Pierce referred me to the book. Some of the depictions of the suffering of civilians were graphic and jarring. For example, included in the book is an account of the effect of the British and American air raid on the German city of Dresden on February 13th, 1945:

The first wave of heavy British bombers approached between nine and ten o’clock at night from the direction of Holland. Between 10:09 and 10:35 p.m. they dropped approximately three thousand high-explosive bombs and four hundred thousand incendiaries on the totally unprepared city. The bombing was well planned. The countless incendiary bombs set large sectors of the city on fire, particularly the old quarters. A fierce reddish-yellow glow shone on the departing planes….At 1:22 a.m. the next wave of planes arrived over the city and dropped approximately five thousand incendiaries. This second wave, guided by the blaze of the burning areas, had only to drop its load into the dark spots to complete the destruction. Their bombs fell into the crowds that had escaped from the already flaming parts of the town. Collapsing buildings, particularly along the east-west axis that once ran though the entire city, barred the streets and cut off their escape. Tens of thousands burned to death or suffocated. A fire-storm arose with a suction so powerful that it dragged grown people irresistibly into the flames. A third raid about noon rounded out the results of the preceding attacks. It released two thousand high explosives and fifty thousand incendiaries on a city that was already in ruins….

Most of the corpses in the city were naked. The fire-storm had ripped their clothes off. They were red, puffed up by the heat. The railway station was a scene of havoc. In its basement, two thousand dead could still be counted. They had suffocated, and now floated in the water that had burst from broken mains and flooded the station. In the cemeteries around the town, excavating machinery was put to work to dig graves into which eighteen thousand dead were laid. Six thousand others, some of them parts only, were cremated on a grate that had been constructed in a roped-off section of the centre of the town. Soon the count was kept only by the number of heads found. Sixty-five per cent of those who were found could not be identified. By April 1 another twenty-nine thousand victims had been removed. But ten to fifteen thousand more were estimated to be still buried under the rubble.[453]同上pp.50-53。
(Juergen Thorwald, 冬季飞行 (London: Hutchinson, 1953).)

Thorwald also tells of what happened to German soldiers and civilians in the streets of Prague one day at the end of the war at the hands of a crowd. He calls it “a day as evil as any known in history.” The Germans had been herded into a courtyard. The crowd

drenched them with petrol, strung them up with their feet uppermost, set them on fire, and watched their agony, prolonged by the fact that in their position the rising heat and smoke did not suffocate them. They tied German men and women together with barbed wire, shot into the bundles, and rolled them down into the Moldau river. They drowned German children in the water troughs in the streets, and threw women and children from windows. They beat every German until he lay still on the ground, forced naked women to remove the barricades, cut the tendons in their heels, and laughed at their writhing. Others they kicked to death.[454]同上，第240-241页。
(Juergen Thorwald, 冬季飞行 (London: Hutchinson, 1953).)

That evening, Thorwald writes, a pastor and some elderly peasants stood on the banks of the river downstream from where these events took place. The river brought bundles tied with barbed wire and corpses that had lost their tongues, their eyes, and their breasts. It also brought a wooden bed, floating like a raft, to which a family, parents and children, had been nailed with long spikes. Those on the shore were able to bring the bed to them and began pulling the spikes out of the children’s hands.[455]同上，p。 241
(Juergen Thorwald, 冬季飞行 (London: Hutchinson, 1953).)

Why is Pierce so antagonistic toward Jews? Why does he have such a preoccupation with them? This chapter attempts to shed light on those questions. Surely, to the vast majority of readers the perspective expressed in the material that follows will seem way off-base. But as wrong-headed as this perspective might appear certain to be, and as uncomfortable as it may be to encounter it, understanding and responding to William Pierce and others like him involves coming to grips with this view of Jewish people and the fact that there are those who adhere to it.

Pierce notes that there are around fourteen million Jews in the world today.[456]William Pierce, “How It All Fits Together,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, December 12, 1998. Most of them live in Israel and the United States—about five million in Israel and between five and six million in this country. Jews comprise approximately two-and-a-half percent of the American population.

In Pierce’s eyes, Jews are a race apart; they are not white people. As a National Socialist, Pierce’s concept of race includes biological inheritance, blood, but goes beyond that to incorporate the history, culture, spirit or soul, and destiny of a people. At various times, rather than speak of Jews as a race, Pierce refers to them as a tribe, an ethnic group, or a people. Whatever Pierce calls them, however, the idea behind it is that Jews are not white. Jews are “them,” and whites—and here Pierce is referring especially to whites of northern European background—are “us.”

Pierce believes that it is important to keep in mind that historically Jews have lived as a small minority among other peoples. Until the creation of Israel a half-century ago, there was only one period when the Jews had a national existence in the usual sense of the term. That was from the time of King David to the Babylonian conquest, a little over four hundred years. After the Babylonians dispersed the Jews throughout the Middle East in the middle of the sixth-century B.C., Pierce points out, the Jews lived as a minority everywhere and a majority nowhere. But wherever they lived, they maintained their sense of separate identity: “The Jews in Rome did not think of themselves as Romans who happened to believe in Judaism,” Pierce contends, “but as Jews who happened to live in Rome—and the same for every other country where they lived.”[457]同上。
(William Pierce, “How It All Fits Together,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, December 12, 1998.)

As Pierce describes it, the Jews adapted “amazingly well” to their peculiar status in the world. They were able to—note his choice of words—”infiltrate areas and accumulate substantial portions of wealth.” They did this by collaborating with one another and “preying on the host.” It should be noted that parasites have hosts. Pierce’s use of terms like preying and host gives an indication of how he perceives Jews. Pierce quotes the first-century B.C. Greek writer Strabo as remarking that the Jews “have penetrated every country, so that it is difficult to find anyplace in the world where their tribe is not dominant.”[458]同上。
(William Pierce, “How It All Fits Together,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, December 12, 1998.)

The history of the Jews, notes Pierce, is a “chronicle of one persecution after another, right down to modern times.”[459]同上。
(William Pierce, “How It All Fits Together,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, December 12, 1998.) Jews have been universally despised by the people upon whom they preyed, he says, and they have been expelled from one county in Europe after another—it didn’t start with the Germans. Jews are familiar with the tales of their persecution from the time of the pharaohs on through to Hitler, Pierce says, and this has helped cement in their sense of identity and their loyalty to one another. It brings people together if they share the idea that things have been rough for them, that other people have been out to get them, and that they are all in it together and need to stick by one another if they are going to survive, and Jews see things that way, Pierce believes.

Pierce argues that while the Jews have defined their treatment by their hosts as religious bigotry, their so-called mistreatment really has been a case of others’ self-defense against persistent deception and exploitation. The many European countries that have kicked Jews out of their lands since the Middle Ages have had the same aversive reaction to them that the Egyptians, Greeks, and everyone else in pre-Christian times had. This enmity that other peoples throughout history have felt toward the Jews has served to heighten the Jews’ animosity toward them and contributed to Jews’ feeling that they are justified in avenging themselves against non-Jews whenever they have the opportunity. Pierce recommends the book, 犹太人的历史 by Abram Sacher. Pierce says that Sachar, the former president of BrandeisUniversity, looks at things from “a very Jewish point of view,” but that nevertheless the book is very revealing.[460]Abram Sacher, 犹太人的历史 （纽约：兰登书屋，1970年）。

Pierce says the Jews’ mode of existence changed to a certain extent after the Second World War with the “theft of Palestine and the establishment of the new state of Israel on Palestinian territory.” Israel still exists, Pierce claims, only because two-thirds of the Jews live elsewhere and look out for its interests.

Without a constant supply of money extorted from Germany, the United States, and other countries, Israel could not continue to exist. Israel would have gone under half-a-dozen times in its warfare with its neighbors during the past fifty years if the United States had not provided massive military and diplomatic support. If all the Jews in America and Europe sold their television networks and newspapers and film studios and moved to Israel, Israel would soon cease to exist.[461]刺穿。

For a scholarly treatment of Jews, Pierce recommends the books of CaliforniaStateUniversity professor Kevin MacDonald. The MacDonald books are entitled A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Separation and Its Discontents及 批判文化.[462]凯文·麦克唐纳（Kevin MacDonald）， 一个人一个人住：犹太教作为一个群体的进化策略 (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994). Kevin MacDonald, 分离及其不满：走向反犹太主义的进化理论 (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998). Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth Century Intellectual and Political Movements （康涅狄格州韦斯特波特：Praeger，1998年）。 “Pretty heavy reading,” Pierce says of the MacDonald books, “but very convincing, very thorough.”

Pierce sees the fourteen million Jews in the world as comprising a cohesive, committed, and loyal racial interest group. Jews identify with one another and look out for their common interests more than any other group. They think and act as one big family:

Like most families, they do a lot of arguing and squabbling among themselves. They go to different synagogues—Orthodox and Conservative and Reform—or to no synagogue at all. There are atheist Jews, and there are Jews who have converted to Christianity. There are capitalist Jews and communist Jews, homosexual Jews and heterosexual Jews. There are rich Jews and middle-class Jews, and even a few poor Jews. But despite this apparent diversity they do a better job of cooperating with each other and looking out for their common interests than any other ethnic group in the world.[463]刺穿。

This tendency of Jews to stick together, to favor Jews over non-Jews and to work for the interests of their tribe, Pierce insists, is a prime reason for their extraordinary wealth and power through the ages. Pierce says he wishes whites in our time had the same degree of racial consciousness that Jews possess, but they don’t. “This is largely the reason why we are in the mess we’re in today.” Pierce acknowledges that there are “clubby little groups” of whites who cooperate with one another to advance their interests. Pierce lists as examples the Council on Foreign Relations and organizations made up of rich and powerful men, corporate heads and bankers and others of that sort. Indeed these groups are powerful, but they don’t have a racial or tribal underpinning and focus the way the Jewish group does. These white groups are primarily motivated by their own personal economic or political interests. Virtually all of them are “heavily larded” with Jews, Pierce says, so even if they don’t have any blacks or Asians among their membership, they aren’t white racial groups as such.

Why are the Jews so unified according to Pierce? One reason, he says, is their religious heritage. Judaism is an ethnocentric religion—a racist religion, really. Whereas Christianity and Islam are universalistic religions, open to anyone who chooses to believe in them, Judaism is not.

Judaism is a religion only for the Chosen People, only for the circumcised sons of Abraham. Jews are defined in terms of their bloodlines, not in terms of their faith, which is why non-religious Jews like Freud or Trotsky or even Marx, the father of atheistic communism, are considered Jews as much as the most pious synagogue-goer, with sidelocks and yarmulke. The non-religious Jews don’t believe in the hocus pocus in the Torah, but they nevertheless are steeped in the folklore and traditions of Judaism. They are as familiar as their religious cousins are with the claims that Jews are a Chosen People, destined to own all of the world’s wealth and be waited on hand-and-foot by non-Jews.[464]同上。
(Pierce.)

Jews view themselves as a distinct people and superior to the people among whom they live and deserving of whatever advantages they can reap at the expense of non-Jews.[A10]同上。
(Pierce.)

Pierce recommends that those who wish to explore the religious basis for Jewish ethnocentrism read the Old Testament, especially the five books of Moses and the book of Isaiah. The five books of Moses are the first five books in the Old Testament—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Pierce says that chapters sixty and sixty-one in the book of Isaiah contains examples of what he holds to be a fundamental theme in Judaism, that the Jews have been chosen by their tribal god, Yahweh (or Jehovah), to own and rule the earth. He notes that in these chapters the Jewish prophet Isaiah “raves” that eventually the Jews shall “suck the milk of the Gentiles” and “eat the riches of the Gentiles,” and that the Gentiles will “stand and feed your flocks” and “be your plowmen and your vinedressers.”[A11]William Pierce, “Joe Lieberman and Judaism,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, August 19, 2000. (In the King James version of the Bible I consulted, it was “strangers” and “the sons of the alien” rather than Gentiles in the last two examples Pierce cites.)

“If you really want to rub your nose in the subject,” Pierce says, “do some browsing in the Talmud.” The Talmud is a compilation of the teachings of Jewish rabbis who lived in the first five centuries of the Christian era. The rabbis erected a distinctively Jewish design for living which has served to maintain the cohesiveness and uniqueness of the Jews as a “people apart” for the succeeding centuries.[A12]Rabbi Alexander Feinsilver, The Talmud for Today （纽约：圣马丁出版社，1980年），第1页。 XNUMX。 Pierce read the Lazarus Goldschmidt edition of the Talmud in German at the Yale University library back in 1965 and found it enlightening. “There is some really breathtaking [anti-Gentile] stuff in the Talmud,” he says.[A13]Lazarus Goldschmidt, Babylonische Talmud (Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag, 1934).

In Pierce’s eyes, Jews are whites’ chief adversaries in their quest to live their way as a people and to realize their destiny as a race. Jews’ ways and whites’ ways contradict one another. When whites and Jews share the same geographical space, Pierce holds, Jews pull whites down and deflect them from who they are and where they ought to be going as a race. Jews are waging an undeclared war of a sort on whites, a war that involves cultural and political attacks rather than military strikes, and Pierce is plainly convinced that if whites don’t wake up to the fact that they are being besieged and begin to take up the battle, in a few generations they are very likely to be greatly diminished as a people. He thinks that the stakes couldn’t be higher in this war. Whites’ upward course as a race—and perhaps ultimately, its very survival—is on the line.

Pierce contends that despite their small number, Jews wield more power in this country than any other group regardless of its size. Jews’ power far beyond what their numbers would predict comes in part from their abundant economic resources and their strong political clout, the latter primarily wielded behind the scenes. But what really gives Jews power is their control of the news and entertainment media in this country. In particular it is the ability to manage the flow of images and ideas through the popular media that gives Jews the capability to have things their way. Jews in the American media—it is a theme that Pierce returns to time and again.

Maintaining their status as the dominant minority in America at the present time by controlling the news and entertainment media is different from the way Jews used to look out for their interests, says Pierce. In prior times, Jews used their wealth to buy influence and privileges by giving or lending money to kings, popes, and emperors. What is very important to take into account is that back then except for this economic and political connection with those at the top, Jews by and large maintained a separate existence from non-Jews. Jews usually lived among their own and did not engage in the same occupations as the peoples among whom they lived. Prior to the last couple of centuries, Jews had almost no cultural influence on our people, says Pierce: “They didn’t write books or plays, they didn’t paint or compose music, they didn’t run for public office, and, of course, they didn’t have television studios or newspapers or advertising agencies. To a large extent they lived their lives and we lived ours.”[A14]刺穿。

The great advantage of this arrangement, Pierce says, was that the—again, note the language—damage done by the Jews was mostly economic, along with some political mischief when it suited their purposes. But Jews didn’t damage the spirit of our people. This all changed, he says, with the advent of the mass media and mass democracy. The Jews quickly understood the potential the media gave them for extending their influence from the rulers to the population as a whole. The Jews also quickly caught on to how democracy provided them with the vehicle to translate the power to control the thoughts and attitudes of the public into political power.

It used to be moneylending and bribes, and the pressure was exerted only at the top, on the political leaders of the society. Today, it is control of the mass media of news and entertainment, and the pressure is exerted at every level of society. Some people still talk darkly about international Jewish bankers. Of course there are such animals today, just as there are also international bankers who are not Jews. But the control of the media is the key to Jewish power, not control of banking. The most important Jews today no longer are the Rothschilds, Warburgs, Hambros, and Sassoons, but instead the Eisners, Levins, Newhouses, Redstones, Bronfmans, and Sulzburgers: the Jewish media bosses.[A15]同上。
(Pierce.)

Whether or not the Jews control the mass media is of great concern to Pierce because he is certain that whoever controls the flow of images and ideas in a society wields enormous power. Media power is not power that is distant and impersonal. The media reach into every home at every waking hour. They shape every individual, young and old, rich and poor, simple and sophisticated. Pierce goes so far as to say that the power the individuals who command the media wield is unprecedented. No king or pope of old, no conquering hero, ever had such power.

Pierce reminds us that everything we know about circumstances and events outside our neighborhood and workplace and circle of acquaintances—or think we know, anyway—comes from the media.

Most people have a very limited range of real life experiences. Television and films and glossy magazines provide an enormous expansion of experience for the average person by substituting artificial experiences for real experiences. On the television screen viewers experience artificial social relationships, artificial romances, artificial conflicts, artificial life. In advertisements they are given artificial ideals of beauty and fashion, artificial life-styles….And in their newspapers and newsmagazines they are given a…view of what is happening in the world.[A16]同上。
(Pierce.)

Exposure to the media results in many people having difficulty distinguishing the artificial world of the media from reality. “Unfortunately, most people do not have sufficient powers of discrimination to distinguish the artificial world of the media from the real world of everyday experience,” Pierce observes. “The two worlds merge in their minds, and they can’t tell them apart.”[A17]同上。
(Pierce.) Pierce showed me a cartoon which he said illustrates this point. A man is bent over fixing a tire on his car which is parked along side of a road in a drenching rain. A little child has his head poked out the window. The father is looking back at him and saying, “No, we can’t change channels. Don’t you understand? This is real; this is what is happening.”

Most people, Pierce points out, don’t quite realize that they have never actually seen or interacted with the president or their favorite movie star or television personality. They have been 如图 these people, and 告诉 about them. Not too long ago, many people experienced profound loss at the deaths of Princess Diana and John F. Kennedy, Jr., whom they had only known on the basis of what the media had shown them. How many of the mourners were fully conscious of that fact? People responded to their deaths in the same way they would have to the deaths of individuals they had actually been with in a flesh-and-blood way. We sometimes fail to realize that we haven’t been in the Oval Office meeting. We haven’t been in the Middle East. We weren’t at Normandy. We didn’t know Roosevelt. We didn’t know Hitler. We never saw Castro or Mao or Martin Luther King. We have never spoken to Saddam Hussein. They are all words on a page and images and sounds on a television or movie screen. As Pierce sees it, whoever shows us the world beyond our front door—whoever mediates the reality beyond our reach—is incredibly powerful.

Several times in our discussions, Pierce decried the fact that so many people have very little basic real-world experience. A lot of people these days, he said on one occasion, have never seen the birth or the death of an animal. He pointed out how in earlier times dead relatives would die in our house and we would see their cold, dead bodies in the bedroom. So many fundamental things are experienced vicariously when they once were experienced directly. We are left with an unrealistic view of life, says Pierce. A lot of people—and here he is talking about city-dwellers—almost never touch the earth. They live in a concrete world, a manufactured world. They exist in an invented world. They relate to a virtual reality. The distinction between what is natural and what is contrived is likely to mean little or nothing to people who live in this way.

The media, says Pierce, create a picture of the world and tell people what to think and feel and do about that picture. Advertisements, for example, don’t just show potential customers what is available and provide them with the information they need to choose what they want. Cleverly designed advertising 创建 wants that didn’t exist before. It manipulates people’s desires and motivations. In a similar way, entertainment and news programs and print media manipulate viewers’ ideas, values, and behavior. Here he isn’t just talking about heavy-handed suppression of news stories or what he calls the blatant propagandizing of history-distorting television docudramas. It is subtler than that, he says. There is the decision of which stories to cover and which to play down or ignore. There is the reporters’ choice of words, their tone of voice, and their facial expressions. There is the wording of headlines. These kinds of things guide our thoughts and opinions too, says Pierce.

The media inform us about how to think and how to conduct ourselves in order to be in tune with the in-crowd, the beautiful people, the smart money, notes Pierce. Pierce believes that people have a strong impulse to conform to a currently accepted or fashionable way to think and be. This desire to be in tune with those “in-the-know” gives people in the media the power to shape opinion. Thus when a television producer expresses approval of certain ideas and behaviors and disapproves of others through the characters and situations he presents, he exerts strong pressure on viewers to align themselves with these ideas and behaviors.

For example, a racially-mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will a “take charge” Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a White racist—that is, any racially-conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial composition of America—is portrayed, at best, as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens. The racist “gun nut,” in fact, has become a familiar stereotype….[A18]Research Staff, National Vanguard Books, 谁统治美国, available on the National Alliance Web site, natall.com.

Pierce says that news that reaches mass audiences establishes ground rules and boundaries of acceptable opinion.

Consider the media coverage of the Middle East news. Some editors and commentators are slavishly pro-Israel in their every utterance, while others seem nearly neutral. No one, however, dares to suggest that the U.S. government is backing the wrong side in the Arab-Jewish conflict and that it served Jewish interests rather than American interests to send U.S. forces to cripple Iraq, Israel’s principal rival in the Middle East. Thus a spectrum of permissible opinion from pro-Israel to nearly neutral, is established.

Another example is the media treatment of racial issues in the United States. Some commentators seem almost dispassionate in reporting racial strife, while others are emotionally partisan—with the partisanship always on the non-White side. All of the media spokesmen without exception, take the position that “multiculturalism” and racial mixing are here to stay, and that they are good things.[A19]同上。
(Research Staff, National Vanguard Books, 谁统治美国, available on the National Alliance Web site, natall.com.)

According to Pierce, once the spectrum of permissible public opinion is established, every point of view, concept, or proposal within this spectrum is allowed expression, and anything outside this frame is either allowed no expression or is twisted and distorted to reinforce the notion that the ideas and people outside the established boundaries are unacceptably misguided, irrational, evil, or kooky, and aren’t deserving of tolerance. That is how it works, says Pierce, and the fact that it works that way has an enormous impact on our lives.

What does Pierce offer to support his contentions that Jews play a dominant part in the news and entertainment media? A good source for answering that question is a pamphlet Pierce periodically updates entitled 谁统治美国 in which he documents the “striking prominence” of Jews in the media. The pamphlet’s authors are listed as the “research staff of National Vanguard Books.” The research staff taking on the job of updating the article when I was in West Virginia turned out to be one person, Bob DeMarais, armed with his computer and a few reference books. In putting together the material in the next few pages, I will draw upon the version of 谁统治美国 published on Pierce’s Web site in June of 2000.[A20]Research Staff, National Vanguard Books. I will refer to Pierce as the author because while he farms out the research, he puts together the material and writes the copy.

In 谁统治美国 Pierce notes that government deregulation has resulted in a series of corporate mergers and acquisitions which have produced a handful of multi-billion dollar media giants. “Whenever you watch television,” he writes, “whether from a local broadcasting station or via cable or satellite dish; whenever you see a feature film in a theater or at home; whenever you listen to the radio or recorded music; whenever you read a newspaper, book, or magazine—it is very likely that the information or entertainment you receive was produced and/or distributed by one of these megamedia companies.”[A21]All of the assertions and quotes until note 22 are taken from the unpaginated version of 谁统治 美国? on Pierce’s web site, natall.com. He also sells it separately as a pamphlet, and includes it in his National Vanguard book catalogs. He then lists a number of companies and the people who head them up. What follows is the information Pierce provides in 谁统治 美国. Unless otherwise indicated, the names listed below are individuals Pierce identifies as Jewish.

The largest media conglomerate in the world is AOL Time Warner. The company is the result of a merger announced in January of 2000 between America Online, this country’s largest Internet service provider, and media content provider Time Warner. AOL chief Steve Case became the chairman of the new company, and Bob Pittman, the former president of AOL, became its co-chief operating officer. (Both Case and Pittman are Gentiles.) Gerald Levin, the former head of Time Warner, became AOL Time Warner’s chief executive officer. Pierce characterizes Case and Pittman as capitalists and technology types focused on profits and process and predicts that they will defer to Levin and those he brings on board to deal with the substance of what is transmitted to audiences. Pierce asserts that AOL will be used by Time Warner as a platform for “Jewish content.”

Prior to its merger with AOL, Time Warner, with thirteen billion dollars in 1997 revenues, was the second largest media conglomerate in the world behind the Walt Disney Company. Time Warner produces films through Warner Brothers Studio, Castle Rock Entertainment, and New Line Cinema. Time Warner’s television subsidiary, HBO, is the country’s largest pay-TV cable network. In 1996, Time Warner acquired Turner Broadcasting (CNN, TNT, and TBS). Warner Music, with fifty labels, is America’s second largest producer of recorded music. Warner Music was an early promoter of “gangsta’ rap,” a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly encourage blacks to commit acts of violence against whites. Time Warner’s publishing division, whose editor-in-chief is Norman Pearlstine, is the largest magazine publisher in the country. Its publications include Time, Sports Illustrated, 员工及 运气.

Pierce asserts that in 1995 Time Warner, which had twenty percent ownership of the CBS television network at the time, was active in blocking Gentile Ted Turner’s effort to buy CBS. CBS’s chairman and CEO at that time was Lawrence Tisch, who prior to taking over CBS in 1985 had made billions in theater, hotels, insurance, and cigarettes but had never been in the telecommunications industry. Pierce contends that Tisch was brought on board at CBS back in 1985 to block Turner’s first attempt to buy that network. The Jews wanted to be certain that the “Tiffany Network” (premier network) stayed in their hands.

The Walt Disney Company, with 1997 revenues of twenty-three billion dollars, is the second largest media conglomerate according to Pierce in 谁统治 美国. Disney’s chairman and CEO is Michael Eisner. Disney includes three television production companies, Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, and Buena Vista Television. Its feature films division, the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, is headed by Joseph Roth and includes Touchstone, Hollywood, and Caravan pictures. (Roth has since launched an independent entertainment venture, Revolution Studio.) Disney also owns Miramax Films run by Bob and Harvey Weinstein. Pierce asserts that prior to the Eisner-led takeover of the Disney Company in 1984, Disney epitomized “wholesome family entertainment” such as Snow White. Now, however, the company has expanded into “adult” movies like 哭泣的游戏, 牧师及 儿童.

In 1995, Disney through its purchase of Capital Cities/ABC acquired ABC television, which has two hundred twenty five affiliated stations in the United States. ABC owns ten local stations in large markets including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston. ABC’s cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by Steven Bornstein. Disney also has the controlling share of the Arts and Entertainment Network (A&E) and Lifetime Television. Disney’s cable networks, which include the Disney Channel, have more than one hundred million subscribers. The ABC Radio Network has over three thousand four hundred affiliates. Disney’s publishing enterprises include W magazine, Hyperion book publishing company, and seven daily newspapers.

Number three on Pierce’s megamedia company list, with 1997 revenues almost the equal of Time Warner’s, is Viacom Incorporated. Viacom is headed by Sumner Redstone (who, Pierce points out, was born Murray Rothstein). Viacom produces feature films though Paramount Pictures, whose boss is Sherry Lansing. It also produces television programs, and owns thirteen television stations and twelve radio stations. Viacom is the world’s largest provider of cable through its Showtime, MTV, and Nickelodeon channels. Nickelodeon, with around sixty-five million subscribers, has the largest share of the four-to-eleven-year-old audience and is gradually, Pierce says, nudging its fare toward the “blatant degeneracy” that is MTV’s trademark. MTV, writes Pierce, “pumps its racially-mixed rock and rap videos into…seventy-one countries and is the dominant cultural influence on White teenagers around the world.” Viacom distributes videos through its four thousand Blockbuster stores. Its publishing division includes Simon & Schuster, Scribner, The Free Press, and Pocket Books. Viacom is also involved with satellite broadcasting, theme parks, and video games. In 1999, Viacom acquired CBS television.

The fourth major player among the media giants, with annual revenues around twelve billion dollars, is Seagram Company Limited. Seagram’s president is Edgar Bronfman, Jr. Bronfman, Jr.’s father—Edgar Bronfman, Sr.—is president of the World Jewish Congress. Seagram’s Universal Studios produces films and television programs. In May of 1998, Seagram acquired control of PolyGram records and became America’s largest producer of recorded music.

In 1997 films produced by the four largest motion picture companies—Disney, Warner Brothers, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram)—accounted for two-thirds of total box-office receipts.

News Corporation, owned by Australian Rupert Murdoch, is the fifth media conglomerate Pierce cites, with 1997 revenues of eleven billion dollars. Pierce identifies Murdoch as an Australian Gentile. However, writes Pierce, Peter Chernin is the president and CEO of the Fox Group, which includes all of News Corporation’s film, television, and publishing operations in the U.S. Within the Fox Group is the Fox Television Network, 20th Century Fox Films, and Fox 2000. Working under Chernin is the president of 20th Century Fox, Laura Ziskin. Pierce quotes Chernin as saying, “I get to control movies seen all over the world.” Peter Roth works under Chernin as president of Fox Entertainment. Chernin also supervises New Corporation’s newspaper, the 纽约邮报, and its magazine, “电视指南”.

Then there is DreamWorks SKG formed in 1994. DreamWorks is a partnership of Steven Spielberg, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and music industry mogul David Geffen. DreamWorks produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music. Its film , American Beauty, a depiction of the lives of a suburban family and their neighbors, won the Academy Award for best film of 1999.

Pierce contends that most of the television and movie production companies not owned by the largest corporations are under Jewish control. He cites as an example New World Entertainment owned by Ronald Perelman, quoting a media analyst as proclaiming Perelman to be “the premier independent TV program producer in the United States.”

In 谁统治美国, Pierce points out that the Jewish presence in television news is strong. The executive producers of ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings 和 The NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw are Paul Friedman and Neil Shapiro respectively. The executive producer of the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather is Al Ortiz. The executive producer of the CBS Morning News is Al Berman. Rick Kaplan heads the news division at CNN. (Kaplan has since lost this position.)

As for newspapers, the three most prestigious and influential in the country—the “纽约时报”是， “华尔街日报”，并 “华盛顿邮报”—are Jewish-owned. The New York Times Company—owned by the Sulzberger family—owns thirty-three other newspapers, including the 波士顿环球报. Jointly with the “华盛顿邮报”是， “纽约时报” 出版 国际先驱论坛报, the most widely distributed English language daily newspaper in the world. Besides publishing the “华尔街日报”, the nation’s largest-circulation newspaper, Dow Jones & Company, whose chairman and CEO is Peter R. Kann, publishes the weekly financial tabloid “巴伦周刊”. The Newhouse media empire, founded by Samuel Newhouse and now run by his sons, owns twenty-six daily newspapers and the Sunday newspaper supplement 游行. Its magazines include the 纽约客, 时尚, “名利场”及 GQ. The newspaper 乡村之声 is owned by Leonard Stern.

On to the weekly news magazines. 时间, with 4.1 million circulation, is published by a subsidiary of AOL Time Warner, whose CEO is Gerald Levin. “新闻周刊”, with a 3.2 million circulation, is published by the Washington Post Company headed by Katherine Meyer Graham through her son Donald. 美国新闻与世界报道, with a weekly circulation of 2.3 million, is owned by Mortimer Zuckerman. Zuckerman also owns the 大西洋月刊 magazine and the sixth largest newspaper in the country, the 纽约每日新闻.

Pierce finds it remarkable that nobody talks about any of this. If these people were all Mormons, Southern Baptists, or—ponder this—Arabs, he said, you can bet your life on people making something out of it. But since it is Jews, nobody brings it up. “Take the Baptists, for instance,” he said in one of his broadcasts. “They launched a boycott of the Disney Corporation because of the raunchy movies its Miramax films division has been turning out, but they refuse to identify either Disney boss Michael Eisner or the Miramax bosses Bob and Harvey Weinstein as Jewish. It’s gotten to the point where you can’t even call a Jew a Jew. They can call themselves Jews, but you can’t even use the name.”[A22]William Pierce, “How It Fits Together.”

“Things happen so fast with all the mergers and personnel changes and so forth,” Pierce told me, “we can’t keep up with all of it, plus I don’t have a high-powered team of professionals tracking all this stuff down. So I know we are out-of-date in places and we have it wrong in other places. But while we may be off on the details, we are on the mark about the overall picture, and that is that the Jews—a very small minority, remember, about two-and-a-half percent of the population in this country—dominate the news and entertainment media. They control what comes into our minds. And that matters—it really does. If 任何 minority controls the flow of information in this country it ought to be an issue, and especially it ought to be an issue when it is the Jews who are the ones in charge. We need to start paying attention to what is going on here, and we aren’t. That is a problem.”

The question becomes, what exactly, according to Pierce, do the Jews do with the power he says they have over the media?

Pierce says that some people say that the Jews are simply businessmen like any other, and that they are merely seeking to make a profit. He says that that is true as far as it goes, but while, of course, he is not privy to the Jews’ private conversations and dealings, judging by their actions other motives reveal themselves. Pierce says he isn’t claiming that there is a vast, tightly organized, joint undertaking that the Jews have going; more, he surmises, it falls into the category of highly committed and like-minded people individually going in similar directions and collaborating when the opportunity arises and supporting one another when they get a chance.

It is best to let Pierce speak for himself on this matter. Below is a series of excerpts from his writings:

Media propaganda takes a deliberate slant: to make us [whites] feel guilty, to kill our sense of racial consciousness while the Jews keep theirs, to persuade us to give up our arms, and to silence all our dissident voices. Their aim is for us to be racially unconscious, to be ashamed of our nature and our traditions, to be afraid to organize for our common good, afraid of being thought of as racists. The deliberate aim of the Jewish media propaganda is to disarm us morally, to make us rootless and defenseless, and then to destroy us.[A23]同上。
(William Pierce, “How It Fits Together.”)

 

The control of the opinion-molding media is nearly monolithic. All of the controlled media—television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, motion pictures—speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. Despite the appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no alternative source of facts or ideas accessible to the great mass of people which might allow them to form opinions at odds with those of the media masters. They are presented with a single view of the world—a world in which 每周 voice proclaims the equality of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish “Holocaust” tale, the wickedness of attempting to halt a flood of non-White aliens from pouring across our borders, the danger of permitting citizens to keep and bear arms, the moral equivalence of all sexual orientations, and the desirability of a “pluralistic,” cosmopolitan society rather than a homogeneous one. It is a view of the world designed by the media masters to suit their own ends—and the pressure to conform to that view is overwhelming. People adapt their opinions to it, vote in accord with it, and shape their lives to fit it.[A24]Research Staff, National Vanguard Books, pp. 42-43.

 

The Jews’ policy is to disarm the White population morally as well as physically by deliberately creating the false impression that Whites are oppressors and victimizers, and non-Whites are our innocent victims. They want us to feel guilty. They want us to feel that it would be immoral for us to resist any of their schemes for more non-White immigration, for so-called diversity and multiculturalism, for more racial mixing and racial intermarriage.[A25]William Pierce, “Fashion for Genocide,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, September 26, 1998.

 

Jewish media control determines the foreign policy of the United States and permits Jewish interests rather than American interests to decide questions of war and peace. Without Jewish media control, there would have been no Persian Gulf war, for example, and no continued beating of the drums for another war against Iraq.[A26]Research Staff, National Vanguard Books, p. 46.

 

Well over half of all money the Democratic Party raises for its candidates comes from the tiny Jewish minority in America, a minority that has accumulated a vastly disproportionate share of America’s wealth. A substantial part of the donations from Jews comes from a relatively few rich Jews associated with the entertainment industry in Los Angeles and New York. And of course, there are strings attached to all of this money. It buys appointments to government office. That’s one of the reasons that two-thirds of the advisors, speech writers, legislative assistants, lawyers, press secretaries, and so forth around Bill Clinton are Jews. [In our discussions, Pierce pointed out that the entire Clinton administration national defense team—Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and National Security Advisor—was Jewish, and that both of Clinton’s Supreme Court appointees were Jews.]…The Jews who control the news media may criticize him [Clinton] for taking campaign contributions from Chinese gangsters and Indonesian bankers, but they will never criticize him for taking money from the Jewish promoters of gangsta’ rap. Never, never, never.[A27]William Pierce, “David Geffen, Steven Spielberg, and Bill Clinton,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, August 22, 1998.

 

Not all the music is gangsta’ rap, of course, and not all the films are the sort of obvious filth the Weinstein brothers produce for Michael Eisner’s Disney Company—but it is all poison. The whole movement in popular music—which has replaced White music with Black music among young Whites—has been orchestrated by Jews. The use of film to condition White Americans to accept racial mixing and interracial sex and homosexuality has been almost entirely a Jewish operation, just as the use of films earlier to incite hatred against Germany and to portray Jews as the world’s most deserving victims was a Jewish operation.[A28]同上。
(William Pierce, “David Geffen, Steven Spielberg, and Bill Clinton,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, August 22, 1998.)

 

The Jew-controlled entertainment media have taken the lead in persuading a whole generation that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable way of life; that there is nothing wrong with White women dating or marrying Black men, or with White men marrying Asian women; that all races are inherently equal in ability and character—except that the character of the White race is suspect because of a history of oppressing other races; and that any effort by Whites at racial self-preservation is reprehensible.[A29]William Pierce, “The Jewish Problem,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 4, April 1997, p. 2.

 

The great fad these days, the great media-promoted craze, is “diversity,” and Jews are to be found in every nook and cranny of the “diversity” movement. Jews produce the “diversity” propaganda, they agitate for new “diversity” legislation, and they are always trying to cram diversity down our throats.[A30]同上。
(William Pierce, “The Jewish Problem,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 4, April 1997, p. 2.)

 

The idea, of course, is to exterminate us, to wage genocide against us, to leave us no opportunity to be among our own kind, no opportunity to feel a sense of kinship and belonging among our own people, no opportunity to organize and defend ourselves. They want to be the one and only self-conscious group on this earth able to act intelligently in promoting their group interests, and then the world will belong to them. They’ve been pretty successful so far in their campaign against us.[A31]Research Staff, National Vanguard Books, p. 46.

Pierce holds up the Steven Spielberg film, 拯救大兵瑞恩, as a noteworthy example of how the media sell a version of reality to the mass public. Pierce says the film is considered to be a realistic and honest portrayal of World War II. The Spielberg film does show the blood-and-guts aspect of the war more starkly than other films have, he acknowledges, but it is far from honest, at least as Pierce views that war. “It [拯救大兵瑞恩] propagates the same lies about the Second World War that every film—and I mean 每周 film—made by the Jewish film industry in Hollywood for nearly sixty years has propagated,” he said in a radio broadcast he called “Media Myths.”

These lies are that the Second World War was a ‘necessary’ war, that there was no way we could have avoided it, and that it was a ‘good’ war, that is, a morally justified war. We were forced to fight Germany in order to protect America. We could not have stayed out of the war or fought on the other side, because that would have been immoral. The other side was evil. We fought against evil. By destroying Germany and Hitler we saved the world from slavery and tyranny. Hitler was an evil man, the most evil man who has ever lived, and with his evil SS troops he intended to enslave the world and destroy everything beautiful and good. But we stopped him. We saved America. We saved the world.[A32]William Pierce, “Media Myths,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, August 15, 1998.

Pierce says the Spielberg film is just one more iteration of this World War II story. It has been parroted by every politician, television newsman, every school teacher for half a century. Pierce insists that the dogma that World War II preserved our freedom and saved the world—to the extent that even questioning the justification of our involvement in that war is uniformly regarded as “out of bounds”—is evidence of just how strong a hold the Jewish propagandists have over this country. You can have dissenting views on the Spanish-American War and Korea, he says, and go right ahead and say anything you want about Vietnam. But don’t let anybody catch you saying anything bad about World War II.

The Second World War didn’t preserve America’s freedom, says Pierce. “America’s freedom was never threatened by Germany,” he proclaimed in one of his broadcasts.

Hitler could not even have imagined taking away America’s freedom. His war against America was entirely defensive. We were the aggressors. The U.S. Army invaded Germany and took away Germany’s freedom, not the other way around. There was never the slightest danger that Hitler would invade America. And we certainly didn’t save the world. What we did was turn half of the world over to the rule of the communists for nearly fifty years. We didn’t even defend America’s economic interests by destroying Germany. The only people whose vital interests were defended by America’s participation in the Second World War were the Jews.[A33]同上。
(William Pierce, “Media Myths,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, August 15, 1998.)

We’ve been sold the idea that the American, British, and Soviet terror bombing, rape, and dismemberment of Germany was the liberation of the German people from the tyrannical rule of Hitler, says Pierce. But the truth of it, he argues, is that millions of white people, including Americans, killed one another in a fratricidal war—racial brother against brother—for the sake of punishing the Germans for throwing the Jews out of their country during the 1930s. The Jews controlled the mass media and politicians even back then, Pierce says, and they were able to persuade us to give precedence to their interests over our own. The Jews hated the Germans and wanted us to destroy Germany for them, and that is what we did. And we still think that what we did was a fine and noble thing, and nobody in public life has the courage to say anything different.

A contemporary political example of Jewish manipulation of the opinions of our people to their advantage, Pierce declares, is what has gone on in recent years with Iraq.

Saddam Hussein and Iraq are being held up as a threat to America, a threat to the world, just as Germany was represented as a threat to the world before the Second World War, when in fact Iraq is a threat only to the Jews’ plans for the Middle East, and Germany was a threat only to the Jews’ plans for controlling Europe [he is referring to communism, which he sees as Jewish-dominated]….Iraq is certainly not a threat to America and never has been, but if the Jews become worried about Saddam Hussein’s ability to thwart Israel’s further expansion, you can be sure that we will be called on again to save America, to save freedom, and to save the world by “liberating” Iraq. And unfortunately, most Americans will respond to the call. They will believe that they are being patriotic by responding, just as most of the veterans of the Second World War still believe that they were being patriotic in responding to the call to save America from Hitler.[A34]同上。
(William Pierce, “Media Myths,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, August 15, 1998.)

In 美国持不同政见者之声 programs called “The Fayetteville Murders” and “Fashion for Genocide,” Pierce presents another illustration of what he believes to be anti-white media bias.[A35]William Pierce, “The Fayetteville Murders,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, August 29, 1998. William Pierce, “Fashion for Genocide.” In these broadcasts he contrasts the media coverage of three crimes which took place in Fayetteville, North Carolina. One of the crimes received extensive national news coverage and the other two nobody outside of Fayetteville ever heard about, and he thinks he knows why.

First the case that everybody heard about as Pierce’s describes it. Back in 1995, Pierce tells his audience, a white soldier by the name of James Burmeister got “tanked up” and ran into a convicted black drug dealer and his girlfriend in Fayetteville and shot them both to death. Police later found what they called “racist literature” in Burmeister’s room. Immediately the case became national news and was a cause célèbre for months: a race killing, how terrible. Bill Clinton held up the crime as an example of persistent white racism. The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and the SimonWiesenthalCenter condemned it as a hate crime time and again.

In the second Fayetteville case, Pierce recounts, two white women, eighteen-year-old Tracy Lambert and twenty-five-year-old year old Susan Moore, were murdered. Tracy and Susan were on their way home one evening when they were abducted by seven blacks and mixed-blood Hispanics. All of the abductors were prospective members of a gang called the Crips. Authorities later learned that they had been assigned the gang-initiation task of murdering two white people—any two white people. So the seven of them drove the two young women to a vacant lot, made them kneel on the ground, and shot them both in the head as they pleaded for their lives. The crime was reported locally in Fayetteville, but not elsewhere, Pierce says.

Now to the third Fayetteville case. A twenty-five-year-old white soldier named Donald Lange was stomped and kicked by seven black soldiers while, according to reports of witnesses, the attackers were shouting racial epithets. Lange lived, but his brain was destroyed. At the time of Pierce’s broadcast, one year after the crime, Lange had not moved or spoken since the beating. Pierce says that the medical prognosis is that he will never regain his faculties. Again, observes Pierce, no news coverage beyond the local area of what happened to Donald Lange. No comment from the President nor any other high official. Silence.

Now imagine, Pierce says, if the races of the perpetrators and victims had been reversed in these last two crimes: two black women are killed by white gang members assigned to kill any two black people; seven white soldiers beat a black soldier into a vegetative state while shouting racial slurs. The gruesome details of the crime would have been on every television screen in America night after night, Pierce contends, and there would have been a parade of politicians and preachers and “hate watchers” lecturing to us about the evils of white racism, just as they did in the Burmeister case and just as they did when three white ex-convicts dragged a black ex-convict to death behind a pick-up truck in Texas—another widely reported case nationally.

But you didn’t hear about what happened to Tracy Lambert and Susan Moore, Pierce says, and you didn’t hear about Donald Lange, because they don’t fit with the current official line, which is that

White people are evil, especially heterosexual White males. They have persecuted non-Whites for hundreds of years. White people really shouldn’t complain if non-Whites sometimes strike back at them. That is only justice. When Blacks and Mexicans organize in gangs, it is only to protect themselves from Whites, but when Whites organize, it is to oppress non-Whites. Whites need to be reminded that they are oppressors. That is why White crimes against non-Whites should be emphasized. And if we are to have a happy and prosperous multicultural society with lots of diversity, which is of course a wonderful thing, then Whites have to mix with non-Whites. So we shouldn’t give them any news that might make them reluctant to mix. We shouldn’t tell them about black crimes against whites, because that might frighten white women away from black men. It might even lead whites to organize against non-whites. In the long run the only sure way to have a peaceful society in which everyone gets along with everyone else is to get rid of the white majority: to replace the present white majority with a non-white majority. A lot of racial mixing and racial intermarriage will help to achieve that, and we should report the news with that aim in mind.[A36]William Pierce, “Fashion for Genocide.”

If what happened to these three young white victims in Fayetteville received wide coverage, Pierce contends, white people might start asking what the actual numbers of white crimes against minorities are compared to the reverse, and that wouldn’t be good at all.[A37]A 1995 article published by the American Enterprise Institute reports that FBI figures show a black offender is about twice as likely to kill a white victim as the reverse. Some yearly totals: For rape, white offender/black victim, 100; black offender/white victim, 20,204. Forrobbery, white offender/black victim, 7,031; black offender/white victim, 167,924. For assault, white offender/black victim, 49,800; black offender/white victim, 431,670. For all violent crimes, white offender/black victim, 55,301; blackoffender/white victim, 572,458. Source: Karl Zinsmeister, “Indicators,” 美国企业, vol. 6, no. 3, June 1995, p.18. Better, says Pierce, that people imagine that whites are committing hate crimes left and right and are the only ones committing them. Better that people assume that any white person who is racially conscious is a low-life “white supremacist” who does terrible things to minorities. Better that whites feel guilty and obligated to cooperate with the program that has been set up for them by those on a higher moral plane than they.

Pierce expresses particular concern about the impact of the mass media on white children. He writes: “By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideals are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by parents, schools, or any other influence.”[A38]Research Staff, National Vanguard Books, p. 46.

In a broadcast in mid-1998, Pierce used the widely publicized case of a schoolyard shooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas in March of that year to make his point that the popular media are having a harmful effect on children. Thirteen-year-old Mitchell Johnson and another boy had shot and killed four of their schoolmates and a teacher in a shooting spree.

On June 13th of 1998, Pierce told his listeners, President Clinton gave a speech at PortlandStateUniversity. Prior to the speech, he had visited a high school in Springfield, Oregon, where another school killing-spree had just taken place. According to Pierce, during the Springfield visit Clinton bemoaned the “culture of violence” in America that incites young people to kill and affirmed his determination to bring an end to the epidemic of school violence which has been plaguing the country.

Right after his Portland speech, reports Pierce, Clinton hopped on Air Force One and flew to Los Angeles, where he was the guest of honor at a party at the mansion of record mogul Lew Wasserman. The purpose of the party, says Pierce, was to raise donations for the Democratic party.

Lew Wasserman, Mr. Clinton’s host, is the chairman emeritus of MCA, the giant record company which is the principal promoter and distributor of the musical genre known as “gangsta’ rap.” For those who don’t know this, gangsta’ rap has lyrics glorifying the life style of Black gangsters and drug bosses. It glorifies street shootings and other aspects of Black criminality. Its rap lyrics are very graphic about murder and rape, which it promotes as being very “cool” and fashionable. Gangsta’ rap has been pushed hard by Wasserman and other big media Jews in an effort to get White kids hooked on Black culture and lifestyles. It fits right in with Mr. Clinton’s efforts to eliminate White racism by getting Whites to accept Blacks and other aspects of “diversity.”[A39]Pierce, “Lew, Bill, Tupac, and Mitchell,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, June 27, 1998.

Pierce says that according to Mitchell Johnson’s English teacher, Debbie Pelley, the young Arkansas killer was really into rap music. Mitchell’s favorite rapper, Tupac Shakur, performed on one of the labels distributed by Lew Wasserman’s company. (Shakur was himself killed in a drive-by shooting.) Mrs. Pelley told a U.S. Senate committee that Mitchell brought this kind of music to school with him, listening to it on the bus and even trying to listen to it during classes. She testified that she heard Mitchell sing along with lyrics about “coming to school and killing all the kids.” Pierce speculates that the impressionable young boy came to think that it would be “cool” to shoot his schoolmates.

Did Clinton see the connection between what Wasserman’s company produced and what happened in that schoolyard in Arkansas? Pierce thinks the answer to that question is yes. “I think he was aware of it, but he figured that the general public wasn’t and so he could get away with going to Lew Wasserman’s party and hugging Lew Wasserman and accepting money from Lew Wasserman just a few hours after telling the parents at Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon that he “felt their pain” over the shootings there and that he was determined to do everything he could to end the culture of violence which led to such shootings. He figured he could get away with it because Lew Wasserman’s fellow Jewish media bosses wouldn’t call him to account for it. I guess he figured right, didn’t he?”[A40]同上。
(Pierce, “Lew, Bill, Tupac, and Mitchell,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, June 27, 1998.)

As he was putting this broadcast about the Arkansas killings together, Pierce talked to me and Irena about it. He told us he had received a letter from a woman who had said that his language in his radio programs was too harsh and inflammatory. There seemed to be a lot of name-calling and talk about violence, she had written, and this kind of thing was making her uncomfortable. “Let me read you something from what I put together for next week,” Pierce said to us, “and why don’t you see if this is the sort of thing she is talking about in her letter and whether you think I’m coming on too strong.”

Irena and I said we would do that, and Pierce began reading a section of his upcoming radio program off his computer screen in spirited fashion, just as if he were delivering a real broadcast. He finished reading with a sentence that went “Bill Clinton is a constitutional psychopath, an indictable criminal, and a piece of filth, and the fact that he was elected President of the United States twice is justification for an armed uprising by every patriot.” He looked over at the two of us and asked, “Well, what about that? Is that too strong do you think?”

Irena didn’t answer right away, and I guess I took over as spokesman for the two of us. I said that I could see how what he said could put off some people; it could sound hyperbolic and shrill and undercut his credibility. This kind of heightened language could draw attention to itself and obscure some of the key ideas that he is trying to get across, such as that if things keep going as they are, whites are going to be a minority in America in fifty years. I said I thought this kind of talk might especially turn away women, that it might seem indecorous and menacing to them. I said that it did appear to me that he had a problem getting women to relate to his message, and that perhaps these sorts of statements blocked women from hearing what he had to say and set up in their minds an outside-the-boundaries-of-the-community image of him and his ideas and his organization that kept them at a distance.

Pierce’s reply was that he had to grab people’s attention, and that strong language like this was the way to reach his audience. He said he needs to stir up people, and anyway, this is how he really feels about Clinton.

I said it seemed to me his approach would attract some and turn off others, but that the last thing he said, about how this is how he really felt, might be the most important consideration. Perhaps what was paramount for him was to maintain his own personal integrity and to express himself honestly, and then to just let things fall out as they do.

“No, no, that’s not it,” he replied. “I do believe that honesty is the best policy, but what’s most important is to get my message across to my audience. I’m willing to do whatever it takes to get that accomplished. I am willing to change how I go about things.”

“Something you might do with regard to people like this woman,” I said, “is to show them that you understand where they are having problems with your approach, that you know what’s making them uneasy. Let them know you are aware of what they are going through and that you care about what is happening with them. And then tell them why you come at these issues the way you do.”

“I could go that ‘touchy-feely’ route, I suppose,” Pierce replied, obviously not too thrilled with my idea. “Here, let me read this part of the talk again.” Pierce then looked back at the computer screen, found his place, and read that same part of his talk again, the part about Clinton being a constitutional psychopath, out loud with the same animation as the first time. He looked very pleased with the ring of his prose. When he finished he said more to himself than to Irena and me: “I can’t understand why anybody would be put off by something like that.”

When I later heard the broadcast, I noticed that the Clinton material we had talked about stayed in the script. I forgot to ask him whether he answered the woman’s letter, and if he did, what he told her.

A year after the Jonesboro killings, at ColumbineHigh School in Littleton, Colorado two students killed twelve other students and a teacher, and then committed suicide. The nation was horrified by what happened. In a radio program, Pierce remarked:

You remember, we discussed this phenomenon of schoolyard killings more than a year ago. I predicted then that we would see many more of them, because the social pathology that causes them is becoming worse. In a word, that pathology is alienation. Multiculturalism results in alienation. Always. You destroy a kid’s sense of rootedness, his sense of belonging to a natural community, you rob him of his sense of identity, his sense of kinship with the people around him, and you’ll have a frustrated kid….You take away a kid’s sense of responsibility to his biological community, and you’re likely to have anti-social behavior. If on top of that you destroy his respect for authority, you’re practically guaranteed trouble…Finally, we should note the effect of the media on young people. The media blur their sense of reality. If children watch television, play video games, and go to the movies from the time they’re able to talk, by the time they’re 17 they’ve seen thousands of people shot to death or otherwise killed—many of whom, with video games, they’ve “killed” themselves. In past generations, children might see three or four real deaths while growing up, and they would have a much better appreciation for the reality of death—and of life—than the kid raised today does. They wouldn’t be quite so likely to confuse game-playing for real life.[A41]William Pierce, “Lies, Murder, and Jews,” 美国持不同政见者之声 Broadcast, May 1, 1999.

“The mass media could be a powerful force for good, a powerful force for enlightening and uplifting and guiding our people rather than exploiting them,” Pierce asserts.[A42]William Pierce, “Media Myths.” Pierce is especially perplexed by what he views as a “naked emperor” problem—nobody will acknowledge the obvious. A good start as far as Pierce is concerned would be to start naming the problem. It would also help, Pierce argues, if people came to understand the problem.

Most people will believe what they are told to believe by their television. Which means that it is essential that the people who control the mass media, the people who decide what the masses are to be told, must be our people, people with our interests—not people with an entirely different agenda of their own. The mass media could be a powerful force for good, a powerful force for enlightening and uplifting and guiding our people rather than exploiting them.”

You know, a lot of people understand that; they understand the power of the mass media. Our political leaders certainly understand that. Many academics understand it. But they won’t buck the Jews. They prefer to go with the flow, to get what advantage they can for themselves, but not to speak out against the way the media have been and are being misused to exploit our people. They are afraid of becoming targets of Jewish hate-propaganda themselves. And they understand the difficulty of convincing the public of the truth after the public already has been convinced of a lie….

And so the politicians and the academics won’t point out the lies…and that means that we’ll have to do it ourselves, the hard way. We’ll have to continue building our own media: media like these 美国持不同政见者之声 programs. That’s a long and difficult job. And while we’re doing that we’ll be hearing and seeing a lot more romanticized propaganda from Steven Spielberg and the Weinstein brothers and the rest of the Jewish media establishment. But at least we are reaching more people with the truth this month than we did last month, and we’ll reach more still next month….[A43]同上。
(William Pierce, “Media Myths.”)

When Pierce talks about what to do about the media problem he sees, his rhetoric often takes on a Malcolm X-like “by any means necessary” quality. Two examples: “I have decided,” Pierce declared in one of his radio programs, “that it is our responsibility to ourselves, to our posterity, to our ancestors, and to the God of Nature which made us what we are, to use any and all means—any and all means—to combat these Jewish media bosses and their collaborators in the government, in the schools, in the churches, and wherever else we find them.”[A44]同上。
(William Pierce, “Media Myths.”) And in one of his writings he stated: “Once we have absorbed and understood the fact of Jewish media control, it is our inescapable responsibility to do 任何 有必要的 to break that control. We must shrink from 没什么 in combating this evil power which has fastened its deadly grip on our people and is injecting its lethal poison into our minds and souls. If we fail to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our race. Let us begin now to acquire knowledge and take action toward this necessary end.”[A45]Research Staff, National Vanguard Books, p. 46.

But specifically what would Pierce have us do? He is not of a bent to advocate particular policies: this law, that regulation, organizing a buyout or boycott, getting individuals into key slots in organizations and agencies. There are the violent, revolutionary actions he writes about in his novels, and from being around him I think there is a part of him that would indeed relish something like that happening. Time and again he’d say we need a revolution, but then he would also invariably quickly add that he doesn’t believe that the time is ripe for one now. My guess is that Pierce would be uplifted to hear of the assassination of a media mogul or two or three. It should be made clear, however, that I never heard him say anything of that sort. I am just making a supposition based on my sense of him.

Pierce has handled the problem of the media’s intrusion into his own life in an individual and non-violent way. He has moved to a remote area of West Virginia where the nearest movie theater is forty miles away. He watches virtually no television. He is a faithful viewer of the NBC evening news, but he told me he watches it by and large because of his work—that is, to inform his radio programs and writings. When I think of how Pierce has organized his life, I am reminded of the letter I discussed earlier that Bob DeMarais wrote to a woman in Florida who had written Pierce. This is the letter Pierce gave to Bob and asked him to draft a reply. In the letter, Bob suggested that the woman

give up television—100%, cold turkey—and cut way down on your radio listening or turn it off altogether. Leave what isn’t real and go to what is real. Spend time with nature, go for a walk or sit out in your yard, see the ground and the sky, feel your place on this earth, see the trees and plants and birds and animals, feel their life. And feel your own life. Think of how each life grows out of a life before. Think of your ancestors who passed life on to you. Think of your children—or the children you will have—and how they will find mates and continue the process of life reproducing itself.[A46]Personal correspondance, Robert DeMarais, July 6, 1998.

I haven’t talked to Pierce about Bob’s letter to the listener who wrote, but I imagine that Pierce would find what Bob said to be reasonable advice given the “pre-revolutionary” circumstance that exists today. But at the same time, I think Pierce would see this sort of individual coping as a means to an greater end, and that is the time when this woman and others of her race join with one another to seize control of the media as part of a larger effort to bring about a radical and fundamental change in their collective lives.

I obtained the books Pierce had recommended by Kevin MacDonald, the ones he said in his radio broadcast were “very convincing, very thorough.” The MacDonald books were available from my university library, so I wasn’t forced to go through a lengthy inter-library loan process as I have with almost all of the books I have reviewed as part of this book project. The MacDonald books are three related volumes, the first published in 1994 and the last two in 1998.[A47]凯文·麦克唐纳（Kevin MacDonald）， 一个人一个人住：犹太教作为一个群体的进化策略. Kevin MacDonald, 分离及其不满：走向反犹太主义的进化理论. Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth Century Intellectual and Political Movements. MacDonald’s general topic in the three books is the ethnic conflict between Jews and those he calls “European-derived peoples.” The subtitles of MacDonald’s three books give an indication of how MacDonald approaches his subject: 犹太教作为集体进化策略, 走向反犹太主义的进化理论及 犹太人参与二十世纪知识和政治运动的演变分析.

MacDonald is a university professor and writes in academic style. I have to agree with Pierce’s description of the books: with a total of 867 heavily documented pages of tightly packed print, it is “pretty heavy reading.” I will only be able to touch on a very small portion of what MacDonald considers in these wide-ranging books, so it may be useful to the reader to check into them. If there is only time to read one of the three, my recommendation is the last one, 批判文化.

As the subtitle of the first volume indicates, MacDonald looks at things from an evolutionary perspective. In this case, however, instead of being concerned with the fate of a species of animals, MacDonald focuses on how one group of human beings—Jews—has struggled to survive and prosper. MacDonald’s thesis is that in the pursuit of their interests Jews have consciously compromised the interests of non-Jews. His books chronicle the ways Jews have gone about that and the impact their actions have had on European peoples in general and European-Americans in particular.

What MacDonald finds very intriguing is how, in the last half-century, European-derived people seem to have gone down without a fight, as it were. In fact, many of them have gone so far as to actively participate in furthering the demise of their cultural heritage and way of life and in lowering the level of their own resources, social status, and political power. MacDonald writes, “That an ethnic group would be unconcerned with its own eclipse and domination is certainly not expected by an evolutionist or, indeed, by advocates of social justice whatever their ideology.”[A48]麦克唐纳， 批判文化, p. ，P。 309. XNUMX。 Yet it appears that by and large European people are in fact unconcerned about their own eclipse and domination. In all three of his books, and particularly in his last one, 批判文化, MacDonald attempts to identify the ways Jews have been able to foster this anomalous posture among non-Jews.

MacDonald argues that, as an ethnic group, Jews have been exceedingly successful in recent decades:

…Jews have played a decisive role in developing highly influential intellectual and political movements that serve their interests in contemporary societies. There has been an enormous growth in Jewish power and influence in Western societies generally, particularly the United States. Ginsberg (1993) notes that Jewish economic status and cultural influence have increased dramatically since 1960. Shapiro (1992, 116) shows that Jews are overrepresented by at least a factor of nine on indexes of wealth, but that this is a conservative estimate, because much Jewish wealth is in real estate, which is difficult to determine and easy to hide. While constituting approximately 2.4 percent of the population of the United States, Jews represent half of the top one hundred Wall Street executives and about 40 percent of admissions to Ivy League colleges. Lipset and Raab (1995) note that Jews contribute between one-quarter and one-third of all political contributions in the United States, including one-half of Democratic Party contributions and one-fourth of Republican contributions. The general message of Goldberg’s (1996) book 犹太力量：在美国犹太机构内部 is that American Judaism is well organized and lavishly funded. It has achieved a great deal of power, and it has been successful in achieving its interests.[A49]同上，第。 303。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.）

How did the Jews go about getting to such a position of prominence? It is clear that MacDonald thinks that intelligence, industry, conscientiousness, and intragroup support have had a great deal to do with their economic success. But what is especially germane here is how MacDonald sees Jews operating at the intellectual and cultural levels in support of their interests. According to MacDonald, in these realms the Jews have had one major aim with regard to the United States: that America not be dominated by a self-conscious, committed, and united European-derived majority.[A50]同上，第。 254。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.） Most of what the Jews have done intellectually and socially can be understood as a means to that end, says MacDonald. Whatever the stated reasons for a particular Jewish-inspired idea or activity, largely or wholly its purpose is to dilute European American power.

Why would the Jews pursue this goal? From MacDonald’s writings, I discern two primary reasons. The first grows out of his evolutionist perspective. MacDonald sees competition for a bigger slice of the pie—or as he puts it, “intergroup competition for resources”—to be inherent in the nature of things. Groups of people look out for their own well-being and seek their own advantage; that is the way it goes. Like it or not, that is the game on the table. The second reason—and MacDonald gives a great deal of weight to this one—grows out of Jews’ experience in Europe when white racial consciousness and unchecked anti-Semitism took hold in Germany under Hitler. “Never let that kind of thing happen again” seems to be the lesson Jews have taken away from that painful period in their history.

Now to some of the strategies MacDonald cites as having contributed to the achievement of the Jews’ goal of preventing the dominance of European-derived people in America.

First, MacDonald asserts, Jewish writers and organizations have played up one of the two major aspects of the American political and cultural heritage while playing down the other one. MacDonald says that there are two main strands in the American story, as it were. One is an enlightenment-inspired commitment to individual rights and individual autonomy, and the other is a republican strand emphasizing a cohesive and socially homogeneous society and the importance of Anglo-Saxon ethnicity in the development and preservation of the American identity.[A51]同上，第。 258。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.） Jewish writers and activists, MacDonald notes, tend to stress the first of these two strands. They emphasize civil liberties and individual freedom and choice. They applaud the democratic process in contrast to republican forms and Euro-American traditions. They emphasize the past sins of the dominant American culture and the limitations in its way of life. Why all this is important is that to the extent that non-Jews come to value personal independence and self-determination and at the same time devalue or ignore their ancestral and national roots and any loyalties and obligations they engender, it will cut them off from their past and extinguish any sense of solidarity with others who share their ethnic heritage. In a word, they will be splintered.

There is also the attack on the Christian religion as a way to kick the props from under Gentiles. MacDonald quotes the Jewish intellectual Norman Podhoretz as writing that “it is in fact the case that Jewish-dominated organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have ridiculed Christian religious beliefs, [and] attempted to undermine the public strength of Christianity….”[A52]同上，第。 150。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.） Jews have effectively painted fundamentalist Christians who attempt to influence educational and other public policy or oppose what they consider to be the moral bankruptcy of certain forms of mass entertainment as backward and a threat to the society. Religion and spirituality hold people together and give them a common direction. If you can make them cynical about their religious orientation and secularize them, you can pull them apart from one another.

And then there is the denigration of non-cosmopolitan European-American ways of life. MacDonald writes that a prominent theme of Jewish New York intellectuals and Jewish scholars in the social sciences has been the intellectual and moral inferiority of traditional American culture, particularly rural American culture.”[A53]同上，第。 319。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.） According to MacDonald, what is important is not so much that Jews come to believe negative things about non-Jews, but rather that non-Jews come to believe negative things about themselves. And that is what has happened, says MacDonald. European Americans have come to look down upon their rural brethren and, even more than that, rural ways and living with connection to the land in general. To disconnect European-Americans from the earth and a pattern of life that is literally grounded is to cut off their roots.

MacDonald sees Freudian psychoanalysis as a Jewish-dominated intellectual movement and a central element in what he calls “this war on Gentile cultural supports.” In particular, MacDonald claims, psychoanalysis pathologizes childhood and undercuts the belief in what he calls high-investment parenting, that is to say, authoritative, non-permissive approaches to raising children.[A54]同上，第。 148。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.） MacDonald doesn’t get into it in his book, but as I was reading this material I wondered whether he might also view the more indulgent parenting techniques popularized in the 1950s and ‘60s by pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock in the same light. I know that Pierce is disgusted with the ways white parents have given over their time-honored—he would call it Aryan—discipline-and-responsibility-centered way of bringing up children. Also, beyond the particular issue of childraising, I came away from MacDonald’s books with the impression that he sees Jewish prominence in the therapeutic professions as having made Gentiles more distrustful of their basic attitudes, impulses, and patterns of conduct. I think MacDonald believes the “psychologization” of Gentiles has induced them to introspect and second-guess themselves, and that this takes away some of their edge, their forcefulness, their fierceness, their ability to connect instinct and action. It has served to soften them.

Then there is the prominence of Jews in promoting black civil rights and the cause of racial integration. MacDonald writes:

Jews have been instrumental in organizing African Americans as a political force that served Jewish interests in diluting the political and cultural hegemony [dominance] of non-Jewish European Americans. Jews played a very prominent role in organizing blacks beginning with the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909 and, despite increasing black anti-Semitism, continuing into the present.…

Cruse observes that Jewish organizations view Anglo-Saxon (read Caucasian) nationalism as their greatest potential threat and they have tended to support pro-black integration policies for blacks in America, presumably because such policies dilute Caucasian power and lessen the possibility of a cohesive, nationalist anti-Semitic Caucasian majority. At the same time, Jewish organizations have opposed a black nationalist position while pursuing an anti-assimilationist, nationalist group strategy for their own group.[A55]同上，第255-257页。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.）

MacDonald points out that Jews have promoted liberal immigration policies as a mechanism of ensuring that the United States would be a pluralistic rather than a unitary, homogeneous nation.[A56]同上，第。 244。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.） The more non-whites who come into the United States, the fewer whites there will be as a total percentage of the population. Also, the greater the number of people whose culture differs from the European culture, the less European in character America becomes. MacDonald notes the strong backing of the Jews for the landmark 1965 immigration law which cut the flow of immigrants from Europe and dramatically increased the flow from Asia and Latin America.[A57]同上，第。 319。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.） Writes MacDonald: “The 1965 law is having the effect that it seems reasonable to suppose had been intended by its Jewish advocates all along. The census Bureau projects that by the year 2050, European-derived peoples will be a minority in this country.”[A58]同上，第。 292。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.）

MacDonald underscores that the problem of immigration of non-European peoples is not confined to the United States. He notes that while it is “a severe and increasingly contentious problem” in the entire Western world, only European-derived peoples have opened their doors to the other peoples of the world and now stand in danger of losing control of territory occupied for hundreds of years.”[A59]同上，第。 329。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.）

MacDonald contends that the multiculturalist ideology has been promoted by Jewish intellectuals to rationalize minority group ethnocentrism while at the same time delegitimize and pathologize European ethnocentrism. Multiculturalism has caught hold with all segments of the population, including those from European backgrounds. Multiculturalism promotes the idea that European-derived people are morally obligated to attend to the welfare of minority groups and to serve the interests of minority groups, even if it is done at the cost of their own interests. However, multiculturalism does not stress the reverse, that is to say, it does not implore other groups to attend to and serve the interests of European-derived peoples.

MacDonald points out the harsh condemnation—including from the many European-derived people who have accepted the tenets of multiculturalism—of any indication that those of European background might develop a cohesive group identity and strategy in reaction to the group identities and strategies of other groups.[A60]同上，第310-311页。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.） Thus there is a double standard: it is all right for minorities to come together to promote their interests—for there to be black, Hispanic, and Jewish organizations, black, Hispanic, and Jewish leadership, a black, Hispanic, and Jewish agenda—but it is not all right for European-Americans to do the same thing. “I have noted,” MacDonald writes, “that a fundamental agenda [of the multiculturalists] has been to make the European-derived peoples of the United States view concern with their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology.”[A61]同上，第。 323。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.） In another place, MacDonald puts it this way: “At present the interests of non-European-derived peoples to expand demographically and politically in the United States are widely perceived as a moral imperative, whereas the attempts of European-derived peoples to retain demographic, political, and cultural control is represented as racist, immoral, and an indication of psychiatric disorder. From the perspective of these European-derived peoples, the prevailing ethnic morality is altruistic and self-sacrificial.”[A62]同上，第。 322。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.）

While the rug is being pulled out from under the European majority, Jews, in contrast, have long been painted in the most positive light possible. “[A] consistent theme of Jewish intellectual activity since the Enlightenment,” writes MacDonald, “has been to cast Jewish ethnic interests and Judaism itself as embodying a unique and irreplaceable moral vision….”[A63]同上，第。 329。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.） MacDonald states: “There is a great deal of consensus on broad Jewish issues, particularly in the areas of Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, church-state separation, abortion rights, and civil liberties.”[A64]同上，第。 303。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.） According to MacDonald, European-derived peoples have come to accept that Jews and whatever they favor is the right side, the side to be on, the side to support, no question about it; and that to be against Jews or to criticize them is to be on the wrong side, no question about that either.

MacDonald says that if the present trends continue, the white population (not including Jews) will likely suffer a decline in economic and social status over the next several generations.[A65]同上，第。 319。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.） However, that is if present trends continue; MacDonald thinks they probably will not continue. European-Americans are likely, MacDonald believes, to eventually join together and pursue their interests in the same way other ethnic groups do now. He writes:

The viability of a morality of self-sacrifice is especially problematic in the context of a multicultural society in which everyone is conscious of group membership and there is between-group competition for resources….I rather doubt that such altruism will continue if there are obvious signs that the status and political power of European-derived groups is decreasing while the power of other groups increases. The prediction…is that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient in a multicultural society, the European-derived peoples of the United States will become increasingly unified; among these peoples, contemporary divisive influences, such as issues related to gender and sexual orientation, social class differences, or religious differences, will be increasingly perceived as unimportant. Eventually these groups will develop a united front and a collectivist political orientation vis-à-vis the other ethnic groups.[A66]同上，第。 322。
（麦克唐纳， 批判文化，第 309.）

Clearly, European ethnic and political unity and collective action is something Pierce would like to see happen and in his own way is attempting to foster. We are left with two big questions about this possibility, however. The first is whether it would be a good turn of events if it happened. Some hold that it would balkanize America, i.e., turn America into a series of separate and competing enclaves and split the fabric of this country. Others, Pierce included, believe it would be a self-preserving and self-affirming response of European-Americans to their current circumstance. The second question, of course, is whether, good thing or bad thing, European-American ethnic allegiance and identity politics will in fact emerge somewhere up the line. MacDonald is of mind to think that it will. If Pierce is right in his analysis, however, there is one very powerful force within this society in particular, the mass media, which is attempting to ensure that it won’t.

Pierce is dismissed by his opponents—and most others as well—as a racist and a hater. He dealt with the topics of racism and hate and the characterizations of him as a racist and hater in several radio programs and 自由言论 articles. I will attempt to capture the essence of what he said on those occasions.

First, Pierce on racism.[465]This section draws on William Pierce, “What is Racism?” audio tape 629 (Hillsboro, WV: National Vanguard Books, 1995; and William Pierce, “The Importance of Courage,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 8, August 1997, pp. 12-15. Pierce believes that over the past forty or fifty years white people have been conditioned to feel guilty about their natural inclinations around race. He says the media in particular but also the schools, politicians, and mainstream churches have waged an all-out campaign to get whites to deny their natural—and Pierce contends, healthy—impulses. And what are these “natural” racial impulses or inclinations? In order to get at that, Pierce says, we must examine the way white people thought and behaved before the “conditioning program” began.

Pierce contends that in times past most whites accepted the fact that people of a particular race preferred to live and work and play with others like themselves. White people, he says, were curious about other races. They would study the lore of the Indians, for example. And indeed, whites found much to admire in other races and cultures—Chinese art for example. But still, whites retained a sense of separateness and exclusiveness and pride in their own European heritage, in their own racial characteristics. They didn’t feel it necessary to apologize for teaching the history of their own race to their children, that is to say, European history. They didn’t feel the need to balance things out by giving equal treatment to other races and cultures. They left Japanese and Tibetan history to the scholars in those fields. And they certainly didn’t feel a conciliatory obligation to invent a false black history to elevate the self-esteem of blacks or to persuade young whites that blacks were their cultural equals.

Did whites feel their race was superior to other races? In general, yes, they did, says Pierce, which is not to say that they were blind to the fact that other races and cultures could do some things very well, and in cases were better than they were at things. But whites valued what they were good at, and so by the standards they set up they looked very good to themselves. They were confident in their abilities and accomplishments as thinkers and problem solvers and civilization builders, says Pierce. They liked their literature and art best. They valued their way of life—their concept of virtue and morality and their approach to family and work and so on. Basically, they believed they had a superior culture and superior race. In that sense they were what today would be called white supremacists. But, Pierce says, they were not alone in feeling that way; it is natural for a people to think their ways are the best, that they are the best. The Chinese, for instance, have historically believed that they are superior to the “foreign devils,” notes Pierce. That the Chinese thought that way didn’t bother whites, Pierce says. It didn’t threaten whites’ sense of their worth, their sense of their place in the world.

Pierce argues that an outgrowth of people’s natural feelings of racial identification and favoritism is to segregate themselves from other people, to live among their own in the ways they prefer. That is their normal impulse. That way of living has been typical throughout the history of humankind. It may seem like a good idea for people to live mixed up with other peoples, Pierce acknowledges, but it doesn’t work as well as we have been told that it does, and it isn’t inherently a superior or a more elevated way to live. And in any case, living amid so-called diversity is not the only legitimate (that is, morally acceptable) way to live, and hardly an urgent moral imperative. It is only in recent years that whites have been pressured to think in those terms.

World War II brought big changes in this pattern of thought and conduct, says Pierce. (This reference to the impact of the Second World War is another example of Pierce’s view of this period in history as a watershed event in human history.) Those who wanted Germany destroyed painted it as a war for democracy and equality. As it went, the Germans believed in a master race while we believed in the equality of the races. This rationale brought increased stress on an equality theme in American life in contrast to an emphasis on the qualitative differences among individuals and groups. The idea of the equality of whites and blacks went along with that theme. From the assumption that blacks were equal to whites it followed that if blacks were observed to accomplish less or conduct themselves less admirably, something external to them must be causing it. And that cause was identified—white oppression. Whites must have made blacks the way they were.

Pierce says that while white villainy seemed to make sense given the—as far as he is concerned—false notion of racial equality, it simply didn’t square with the facts. The vast majority of whites, contends Pierce, didn’t concern themselves with blacks and wasted no time trying to suppress them. The vast majority of whites didn’t care what blacks did. They simply wanted to go their way and let blacks go theirs. But the facts of the matter aren’t what is important here, maintains Pierce. What is important is to understand that World War II served to heighten the belief that if blacks had any problems at all they could be laid at the feet of whites.

Pierce views the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and ‘60s as another important turning point in the development of the “whites-as-bad-guys” perception that has taken hold. During those years, the media showed us images of inoffensive blacks marching and protesting amid what looked to be white hooligans who were screaming at them, assaulting them, and in some instances killing them. After scores of television clips, news stories, and commentaries which painted this same picture, resistance to what the civil rights activists wanted became equated in most people’s minds with KKK types and beefy Southern sheriffs and their German shepherds and waterhoses. It is understandable, says Pierce, that most white people came to sympathize strongly with the dignified demonstrators and their cause and to be repulsed by their boorish and brutal white attackers and what we were told they represented.

Pierce says that indeed there were white working-class people who saw their way of life threatened and acted in an undignified and intemperate and violent way. The media were quick to record it and place it in a context—in a story line—that appealed to what Pierce calls the “innate white sense of propriety and fairness.” The media then transmitted these carefully selected scenes of white resistance to racial integration along with particular interpretations of what was happening over and over and over again. The white people who saw on their television screens and read about what their own people were doing were embarrassed by it and felt guilty over it. The media made the whole idea of resistance to racial integration shame- and guilt-inducing to most white people.

Pierce says the media paired up names, labels, for what whites were seeing and hearing and reading and feeling during the civil rights revolution: 种族主义及 种族主义者. The media associated racism with white resistance to the civil rights organizations. Again and again and again they paired up white resistance to a single idea/explanation—racism. Again and again, the media paired the image of the roughneck white opponent of civil rights being portrayed on the screen or in print with the label/identity racist.

After a time, Pierce says, the words themselves—“racism,” “racist”—came to evoke pangs of revulsion and guilt on their own, just as the sound of a dinner bell resulted in Pavlov’s dogs salivating. The media had created a conditioned response to the word racism. Now, all anybody has to do to get whites to turn pale, become apologetic, and give in is call them racist. People don’t have to argue the facts with whites; all they have to do is push the right emotional button. If they ring the “racist bell,” whites—even the most rugged and proudest of whites—will bow their heads and put their tails between their legs and let people have their way with them.

Pierce says the media could have worked the conditioning the opposite way if they had wanted to by associating different things with white resistance to the civil rights movement. For instance, they could have presented interviews with middle class whites—professional people, academics, artists and writers, philosophers—who believed in racial and cultural integrity and who would have pointed out the negative impact on countries like Puerto Rico, Brazil, and Portugal when the races were mixed together. The media could have shown what happened to white schools and neighborhoods after an infusion of blacks, the decay and disorder and crime. They could have interviewed white women raped by blacks. They could have presented case studies of whites girls who mated with black boys they met in school and shown us their mixed-race children and let us see how we really felt about that. But they didn’t do that. That wasn’t consistent with the program.

During this time and since, according to Pierce, the schools joined the campaign of re-shaping white attitudes. The curriculum kept students from understanding the rationale for segregation. Instead, segregation was linked to mindless hatred and oppression. History was de-Europeanized and infused with the real and imaginary accomplishments of non-whites. The churches also got into the act of decrying racism and promoting a multiracial society. And for their part, white politicians pandered to minority interests and lectured to their own people about how they must share their lives with minorities and to give them anything they wanted. All three of these segments of the society—the schools, churches, and politicians—offers Pierce, promoted the idea that anyone opposed to an integrated society was evil and irrational, that is to say, a racist. The only thing that operated against this wave of cultural re-shaping of whites, says Pierce, is the actual physical presence of blacks so that people could experience for themselves the glaring contradictions between the theory of racial equality and the reality of racial differences.

Pierce notes that race has become such a hot-button issue that it is very difficult to discuss it rationally at the present time. He says talking about race today must be how it was for Presbyterians to talk about sex a century ago. He says he gets letters and messages from white people who say he ought to be killed for advocating separation of the races and opposing miscegenation. As difficult as it is to do, whites nevertheless must think and talk about race rationally and honestly, Pierce asserts. They must not be embarrassed about it and feel guilty about it. They must be willing to entertain the idea that wanting to live and work among their own people is a natural, healthy feeling they were born with. Nature gave whites that impulse so that they could evolve as a race. Living among their own allows them to develop special characteristics and abilities that set them apart from every other race. Living with their own is essential to their survival as a race. What is irrational and destructive is the very thing that is being pushed upon them—a multiracial, culturally conglomerate society and way of life. It is going to take determination for whites to open up their eyes and their minds to reality, and more courage than they have shown in the past to begin to report to the world what they truly believe. But that is what whites must do.

Pierce says that whites are being controlled by their fear of being smeared as racists if they disagree with the orthodoxy about race in this country. In a 自由言论 article called “The Importance of Courage,” Pierce talks about how he has dealt with the challenge of overcoming his own timidity when confronting the possibility of being called a racist.

I’m sorry to say that I’ve seen that same sort of timidity in myself. When interviewers have asked me whether or not I am a racist, I have responded by asking, “Well, what do you mean by the word ‘racist’?” I’ve tried to wriggle out of giving a direct answer to the question…

I have resolved not to try to wriggle away from saying exactly what I believe when someone asks me whether or not I am a racist [because] it’s pretty clear what the interviewers have in mind when they ask me whether or not I am a racist. These days anyone is a racist who refuses to deny the abundantly clear evidence that there are inherited differences in behavior, intelligence, and attitudes….A racist is any White person who prefers to live among other Whites instead of among non-Whites and prefers to send his children to White schools. A racist is any White person who feels a sense of identity with, a sense of belonging to, his own tribe, his own people, his own race, and who shows an interest in his race’s history, heroes, culture, and folkways…A White racist is a person who finds the members of his own race more attractive physically than members of other races and who is instinctively repulsed by the idea of racial intermarriage or by the sight of a White person intimately involved with a non-White…A racist is a White person who is disgusted with the multiracial cesspool that America is becoming….

Yes, I am a racist.[466]Pierce, “The Importance of Courage,” p. 13.

Pierce applies basically the same analysis to the hater label as he did to the racist characterization—that it is a product of conditioning, linking a label charged with a negative emotion to people or organizations in order to discredit them.

They [the media] always use the word “hate” in writing about me or the National Alliance….What they are deliberately trying to do is create an association in the mind of the average reader or television viewer between any mention of me or my organization and the emotion of hatred….It is an irrational, Pavlovian sort of thing, because the National Alliance is 不能 a hate group but instead a group dedicated to the welfare and progress of our people. But clearly there are folks out there who feel threatened by such effort: folks who regard any activity aimed at building a sense of racial solidarity and racial consciousness among Europeans as a threat to themselves….They don’t come right out and say they are opposed to White people regaining an understanding of our roots and an appreciation for our own unique qualities in a rapidly darkening world and a sense of responsibility for the future of our people….They attempt to use psychological trickery to keep our people confused and disorganized. They don’t want us thinking clearly about what is in our own interest and what is not. They deliberately attempt to incite hatred against me and others who are concerned about the future of our people….[467]William Pierce, “Who Are the Haters?” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 9, September 1997, pp. 9-10.

Pierce claims as a matter of fact, and as ironic as it may seem, that he is the target of a hate campaign. He says that those who oppose him—and here I believe he is primarily talking about the mass media generally, and the Anti-Defamation League, the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation, and the Southern Poverty Law Center in particular—use the pretense of “combating hate” in order to create hate against him. He contends that they call him a hater to make him appear to be such an irrational and dangerous individual that it is all right for decent people to hate him for it. He says that he gets a significant amount of what he would call hate mail.

在他的一个 自由言论 articles, Pierce responded to the charge that he is a hater:

Whenever I look at what has happened to our cities and our schools during the past 30 or 40 years, I cannot suppress my feeling of hostility toward the Blacks, mestizos, and Asians who have made so much of our country an enemy-occupied wasteland. I feel a surge of anger every time I see a non-White face on television or in an advertisement. Thirty or forty years ago, before all the new civil rights laws gave them a privileged status and when there were 25 or 30 million fewer of them in the country, I didn’t feel this hostility. I figured that we could each stay in our own communities and we wouldn’t get in each other’s way. But now I want them out of our country, out of our living space. But even so, my hostility toward these non-Whites who are overrunning my world is not the nasty sort of hatred, embellished with obscenity that I see expressed in the hate letters I receive….

My feeling toward the Jewish media bosses—and all the clever little Jewish propagandists who write news stories about so-called “hate groups” in an attempt to make ordinary people hate me—is much closer to real hatred. Over the years they have done enormous damage to our people with their poisonous propaganda, and they aspire to do even more….

But I reserve my most heartfelt hatred for the collaborators among my own people…who consciously and deliberately betray their own people, lie to their own people, in order to gain advantage for themselves—the politicians, generals, public officials, clergymen, professors, writers, businessmen, and publicists….There is no fire in hell hot enough to punish these traitors, and there will be no place for them to hide when the day of retribution comes….

Yes, I hate traitors, I hate liars and deceivers, and I cannot say that I feel at all apologetic about the fact that I hate them. Hate may be an unpleasant sort of emotion, but it can serve a good purpose, and that is why Mother Nature gave us the capability to hate. It is one of the faculties which protects us from traitors and deceivers by ensuring that we will weed them from our midst when we catch them, instead of forgiving them and giving them a chance to betray us again.

Nevertheless I reject the label “hater,” with which the real hatemongers have tried to brand me. I spend very little of my time hating and a great deal of my time spreading understanding with the hope that it will benefit my people.[468]同上，第10-11页。
(William Pierce, “Who Are the Haters?” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 9, September 1997, pp. 9-10.)

Pierce calls the current crusade against hate an attempt to shut up dissenters and to criminalize political thought.

They invented the terms “hate crime” and “hate speech” only a little over a decade ago—unless one wants to give the credit to George Orwell, who popularized the essentially identical concept of “thought crime” in 1948, with his futuristic novel 1984….The idea of a hate crime is a crime defined by what the offender was thinking when he committed an act rather than the act itself….Once they forced the country to accept the idea of thought crimes, they found it much easier to have actual legislation passed which set penalties for various acts depending on what the offender was assumed to have been thinking at the time. And in order to establish what the offender was thinking, the government could examine his private correspondence. They could examine the ideological content of any books or magazines found in his residence. They could explore his religious, social, and political associations. All of these things could be used as evidence against him in court.

It’s hard to see how new laws against vandalism or beating up homosexuals can accomplish much, since vandalism and assault already are illegal and have been for a long time. It doesn’t really help their campaign much to elevate these offenses from the realm of ordinary crimes to the realm of political crimes—and you know that is what all of these so-called “hate crimes” are: they are political crimes.[469]5. 同上，第。 11.
(William Pierce, “Who Are the Haters?” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 9, September 1997, pp. 9-10.)

What Pierce thinks the campaign against hate crimes is really about is to get the public in a mindset such that they will go along with hate-speech laws that would deny him and others like him the right to express their social and political views. He points to laws against hate speech in Canada, Britain, France, Germany, and Switzerland as the kind of thing that his adversaries want to enact in this country. He says their aim is to silence people like him who are critical of the social and racial policies the government is adopting. If these kinds of laws were passed in this country, Pierce believes his radio program, 自由言论, and his Web site would be shut down. In late 1999 I was with Pierce in Munich, Germany, where he had traveled to give a speech at a rally of the National Democratic Party. As I listened to his speech, I was taken by Pierce’s lack of any explicit reference to Jews. Instead, he spoke of “the enemies of our people” and the like. After his speech, I asked him why the euphemisms. He replied that he felt he didn’t dare directly refer to Jews in a negative way lest he run up against Germany’s hate speech laws.

Pierce believes that all the hate-crime talk and the examples that are cited—always the crimes are whites against minorities, never the other way around—and the cries for tolerance are a “white guilt” campaign designed to intimidate and soften up the “average Joe,” as he calls the typical white person. In a radio program called “Odysseus’ Way,” Pierce refers to a magazine editorial that he has kept in his files since 1955 entitled “Should Hate Be Outlawed?”. (How many of us keep editorials on file for forty-five years?) Pierce said the editorial is by an “unusually bold Gentile writer” and is as applicable today as it was when it was written nearly half a century ago. Pierce offered an excerpt to his listeners:

On billboards, on bus and subway posters, in newspapers and magazines, through radio and television broadcasts, Americans are being assured and reassured, both subtly and boldly, that “Bigotry is fascism. . . Only Brotherhood can save our nation . . . We must be tolerant of all!” The long-range effects of this [anti-fascist propaganda] campaign are even now evident. It is producing the “spineless citizen”: the man who has no cultural sensibilities; who is incapable of indignation; whose sole mental activity is merely an extension of what he reads in the newspaper or sees on the television screen; who faces moral disaster in his neighborhood, political disaster in his country, and an impending world catastrophe with a blank and smiling countenance. He has only understanding for the enemies of his country. He has nothing but kind sentiments for those who would destroy his home and family. He has an earnest sympathy for anyone who would obliterate his faith. He is universally tolerant. He is totally unprejudiced. If he has any principles, he keeps them well concealed, lest in advertising them he should seem to indicate that contrary principles might be inferior. He is, to the extent of his abilities, exactly like the next citizen, who, he trusts, is trying to be exactly like him: a faceless, characterless putty-man.[470]William Pierce, “Odysseus’ Way,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, February 27, 1999.

Pierce says the “anti-fascist” and “tolerance” campaign has been carried on unabatedly since the time of this editorial and has been very successful. The degree to which Americans live a spineless and principle-less existence out of fear that they will be considered haters has reached what Pierce calls a “terminal state.”[471]同上。
(William Pierce, “Odysseus’ Way,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, February 27, 1999.) The average white person has been remodeled into a deferring, passive, tolerant-of-whatever-he-is-told-to-tolerate…putty-man.

To understand what Pierce has to say about the sexes—or anything else for that matter—his fundamental frame of reference has to be kept in mind. Pierce is first and foremost a racialist. He looks at the world through the lens of race; everything he says and does is grounded there. Pierce’s concern as a racialist is with the history and current and future well-being of the white race in general and white Americans or, another term, European-Americans in particular. I have never encountered anyone who is as focused in his life, as directed, as single-minded, as Pierce is in his. All to say, race is Pierce’s context—and for all practical purposes his only context—and thus when he deals with matters related to men and women, the topic of this chapter, as with everything else, he does so from a racial angle.

Pierce’s racial lens stands in stark contrast to the one typically used to view matters in this area: the one which has been established by modern feminism over the past almost-four decades. (I mark the advent of modern feminism with the publication in 1963 of the seminal book by Betty Friedan, 女性的奥秘.[494]贝蒂·弗里丹 女性的奥秘 （纽约：诺顿，1963年）。) Modern feminism’s fundamental unit of concern, of course, is not with race but rather with gender, and more particularly with the circumstance of women in contemporary society. It is a women’s movement, not a racial movement.

In fact, feminism has effectively appropriated the term gender. That is, for most people, gender—which strictly speaking refers to both men and women—has come to mean women. These days, when people are informed that there will be a discussion of gender issues, they will naturally assume that it will be about women. If men are considered at all, it would be reasonable to think that it will be in terms of their relationship to women, e.g., how they have impeded or furthered women’s progress in achieving fulfilling and productive lives in this society. Another illustration, one assumes that gender studies programs in university are women’s studies in the first instance and that they are under the control of women and taught by them, not that they are studies of women and men equally and under the control of women and men and taught by them both. The point is that it is a women’s movement, not a women-and-men’s movement.

In contrast to a feminist-influenced orientation, Pierce focuses on both men and women as part of the larger whole of race. And we’re talking about white men and women here. Pierce leaves it to other races to look out for themselves—which he believes they are in fact doing, and doing it better than whites are. Pierce sees other races as busily looking out for their own interests without the least bit of concern for how whites are faring, while guilt-ridden and do-gooder whites support their efforts and pay no mind to the fate of their own people. To Pierce’s way of thinking, white men and women cannot be and should not be thought of as separate entities, and certainly they should not be seen as competing, antagonistic groups in the way he believes the feminist perspective portrays them. Rather, as Pierce looks at it, white men and women are parts of a larger reality, a living organism of sorts: their race. From Pierce’s perspective, men and women can only be understood if their relationship to the survival and development of their race—this larger process, this larger reality—is the primary concern. Race and not gender must be the focus, insists Pierce. Men and women, at least if one accepts Pierce’s line of thought, must above all else seek harmoniously and effectively to complement and support one another in carrying out their real purpose in life, a purpose they share and which is more important, more fundamental, more significant, than the fates of their individual lives or of their sex as a whole, and that is to ensure the existence and improve the state of their kind on this earth.

From Pierce’s evolutionary perspective, he sees the white race, whether it realizes it or not, as being in a struggle to maintain and enhance itself. In order for the white race to do this effectively it must be strong, tough, protective, fierce, and rigorously rational—that is how Pierce looks at it. In a masculine-feminine dichotomy Pierce uses as a frame of reference, he associates the qualities just listed, toughness and strength and so on, with the masculine. While Pierce believes that both masculinity and femininity as he defines them are necessary to the welfare of the white race, he believes it particularly debilitating to his people if they lose their masculine character. It is this outlook that has led Pierce to give a great deal of attention to masculinity and men. In fact, Pierce shines the spotlight on men more than on women, and that in itself is a reversal of a pattern that has prevailed in recent times. Within that focus, he is particularly concerned with the ways boys are raised and the kind of men they become as a result.

As for the raising of girls, Pierce has made it clear that he finds it unfortunate that girls are no longer being brought up to be mothers and homemakers but rather to become what he views as self-indulgent careerists. Beyond making this general point, however, Pierce hasn’t given attention to the particulars of the ways girls are being brought up to the extent that he has with boys. With girls, it is more a matter of his offering comments and anecdotes here and there about what he sees going on with them. Almost always these remarks are referenced in Pierce’s bottom-line concern: whether white girls someday will bring white children into the world and nurture them well and thereby contribute to the survival of the race and the achievement of what he believes to be its glorious destiny. For Pierce, it all comes down to that.

Another break in the prevailing pattern, Pierce’s racialist orientation has led him to call attention to the state of marriage in contemporary times, with a special emphasis on how it is carrying out its childbearing and childraising functions. To Pierce, marriage is the institution that perpetuates the race. In Pierce’s eyes, the marriage unit—father, mother, children—represents no less than the future of the race. Without healthy marriages, Pierce is convinced, there cannot be a healthy society or a healthy race. If marriages are sick, the society will be sick and the race will be sick and perhaps even perish. For Pierce, to talk about marriage is to talk about racial life and death.

I think it fair to say that the institution of marriage with an emphasis on its childbearing and childraising functions has not been as prominent in modern feminist thought and action as have been concerns for the personal fulfillment of women, solidarity among women, and the entry of women into the economic and political arenas of society. This is, of course, not to say that feminists don’t care about families—they do. But it is to suggest that a concern for the nuclear family and advocacy directed at maintaining it have not been a central focus within the contemporary women’s movement.

Pierce’s racialist orientation shifts the concern relative to childbearing. Today, discussion tends to center around a woman’s freedom to decide whether or not to bear a child—the abortion debate. Pierce, in contrast, zeroes in on what 样 of child a woman bears. His concern is with whether a white woman gives birth to a white child or one of mixed race and with the quality of that child. He approaches the family planning issue not so much from the question of how many children are brought into the world but rather how good they are. This orientation has lead him to advocate eugenics as a social policy. Eugenics is the attempt to improve the quality of a population by managing who has children and with whom and in what numbers. I talked to Pierce about his thinking in this regard.

“I think that the white society that emerges from the chaos following the collapse of this society really needs to erect eugenics as one of the fundamental pillars in the new order,” Pierce told me. “It’s going to have to try to undo some of the damage thousands of years of dysgenic [harmful breeding] practices have done. We are going to have to decide what qualities we want our descendants to have and then select for those qualities.

“You hear this argument: ‘But you are playing God. What makes you think you know that it is better to have this kind of people than that kind of people?’ Well, in a certain sense somebody always makes the decision of what the quality of future human beings will be, whether or not they realize it or acknowledge it. I have a hard time believing that leaving something as important as that to the system we have now—which is pretty close to chance—is better than making a rational decision about what we want and then trying to achieve it.

“Back in the Stone Age, let’s say, nature was very selective. We lived a much more rigorous life back then, both as individuals and as communities. We had to do things right or we didn’t survive. Nature didn’t tolerate many screw-ups, and that tended to push us up the evolutionary path. Human beings evolved, especially in the northern hemisphere with its severe weather changes during the year. The person who was too busy chasing butterflies during the summer to put away a sufficient supply of firewood and food for the winter never saw another summer again—simple as that. You had to be pretty tough and strong, both mentally and physically, back then.

“I think we reached our peak sometime around 10,000 B.C. when we moved into the Neolithic Age and lived a settled existence and farming became the basis of our subsistence rather than hunting and gathering. Before that, everything was on a very small scale, with small clans moving across the landscape with their animals from one area to another as the seasons and the hunting conditions changed. Now, however, we stayed in one place. We built more permanent dwellings and started living in settled communities and there was a much more elaborate division of labor and we began to see large-scale social and governmental structures and we accumulated surpluses. The result of all that was that those who would simply not have survived in Paleolithic times could now stay alive and breed. So I think that we began to see some dysgenics around that time, and evolution slowed down. I’d say that for roughly ten thousand years we’ve been going downhill as a species, and that this process has really speeded up in the last couple of hundred years.

“It is my basic feeling that whether we are going uphill or downhill is what life is all about when you get right down to it, and that we ought to be concerned about that and do something about it. Since we have short-circuited nature I think we need to start to make up for it, and that means eugenics. We need to put ourselves in nature’s place. We need to assess the genetic impact a particular social institution or pattern or policy has on our race. We need to look at it from that angle. Does whatever-it-is make us more fit, or less? Does it contribute to our evolution toward higher intelligence and higher consciousness? And then, when we get answers to those questions, we need to act accordingly.

“The elders in Sparta in ancient Greece, for example, would examine very young children. If the child seemed fit in every way, it was given back to the family to raise. But if the child was judged to be defective in some way, the child was killed. I guess you could call that a form of negative eugenics. Although that is an extreme example; you don’t have to be nasty or bloodthirsty to get this done. And you don’t have to compel people either, tell them that if they are an ‘alpha-plus’ they must live in a particular neighborhood or something like that. What you can do is simply modify social arrangements so that the best people are encouraged, are more likely on the average, to get together and have more children than the less capable. You can alter the way you collect taxes or disburse tax revenues, for instance. You can pay attention to dysgenic influences like the welfare system, which for thirty years and more has encouraged the least fit among us to propagate, and the feminist ideology that has caught hold with so many of our best women and pushed careerism on them and downplayed the importance of family and children. You might not design a perfect system, but if you keep eugenics in mind you can make a positive impact on future generations. At least you are looking in the right direction.”

“I assume you are particularly concerned about the effects of miscegenation on white people.”

“Miscegenation is the worst kind of ‘no-no’ for our race. That is one place where I would have compulsion. I run into problems with libertarians on this one, but I’m firm on it. But this is an exception; I think you can have 90% of the eugenic effect you want without being repressive at all. It comes down to how you structure society—the types of institutions you have, the values and ideas you promote, and so on—so that things tend to happen more the way you want them to rather than in a dysgenic way. People aren’t absolutely compelled to do this or that, but rather they do something because it is what happens naturally given the context that is created for them.”

In the material that follows, I sample Pierce’s writings to give an indication of how he looks at issues related to men and women.

Pierce begins a 自由言论 article entitled “The Feminization of America” with the observation that he has always been fond of women—“perhaps too much so, sometimes.”[495]William Pierce, “The Feminization of America,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 10, October 1997, p. 1. About women Pierce writes, “I always have enjoyed their company greatly. I have really worshipped feminine beauty. I have admired and respected women when they have served their purpose in the life of our people, as much as I have admired and respected men who have served their purpose.”[496]同上。
(William Pierce, “The Feminization of America,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 10, October 1997, p. 1.) Having said that, he wants it known that he believes that much of the pathology of present-day society—and by society he means white American society—is due to its feminization over the past century.

Pierce holds that American white culture has been weakened due to the loss of much of its masculine spirit and character. To get at what Pierce means by masculine spirit and character, it helps to understand the way he distinguishes the masculine from the feminine. To Pierce, the masculine is associated with honor, beauty, tradition, roots, the distant frontier, and, his phrase, “reverence and awe for Nature’s majesty.” In contrast, the feminine in Pierce’s conception emphasizes safety, comfort, and the tangible rather than the intangible. The feminine orientation and approach to life has, as he perceives it, a more limited horizon, “with the home and the hearth very much in sight.”[497]同上，第。 3。
(William Pierce, “The Feminization of America,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 10, October 1997, p. 1.) The feminine, says Pierce, is concerned with words as much as deeds. It favors equality over inequality: the view that “all of God’s children are loved equally, all are considered cute and adorable.”[498]同上，第。 2。
(William Pierce, “The Feminization of America,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 10, October 1997, p. 1.) To Pierce, aristocratic or elitist values are masculine, while democratic or egalitarian values are feminine. In the political realm, Pierce believes that as the feminine takes hold in a culture, “the role of government shifts from that of a father, who maintains an orderly and lawful environment in which men are free to strive for success as little or as much as suits them, to that of a mother, who wants to insure that all of her children will be supplied with whatever they need.”[499]同上。
(William Pierce, “The Feminization of America,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 10, October 1997, p. 1.)

Pierce uses Timothy McVeigh’s statement to the court at the time of his sentencing for the Oklahoma City bombing to make his point about the difference between the feminine and masculine orientation. Pierce says that nearly everyone was disappointed with what McVeigh chose to say in his first public utterance. People had expected and desired an apology from him for the suffering of the innocent victims of the bombing he had caused. They wanted him to show that he related to what the individuals and families who had lost their loved ones had gone though and to say that he was profoundly sorry for the pain and loss he had brought into their lives. Instead of that, McVeigh had used the occasion to point out that the government is the teacher of the people, and that when the government breaks the law—he was referring to what happened in Waco during the siege of the Branch Davidian property—its citizens will not respect the law. He had given a speech on the issue of government lawlessness, and that had turned people off.

“All right,” Judge Matsch had said. “Mr. McVeigh, you have the right to make any statement you wish to make. Do you wish to make a statement?”

“Yes, your honor,” McVeigh replied. “Briefly.”

McVeigh rose from his seat and walked to a lectern in the center of the courtroom. He was dressed in the cream-colored uniform of a federal prisoner. As he spoke, his hands were clasped behind his back and twitched nervously.

“If the court please,” McVeigh began, “I wish to use the words of [Supreme Court] Justice Brandeis dissenting in 奥姆斯特德 to speak for me. He wrote, ‘Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.’ That is all I have.”

Judge Matsch then sentenced McVeigh to die, and marshals took him out of the courtroom.[500]理查德·塞拉诺（Richard Serrano） , One of Ours: Timothy McVeigh and the 俄克拉何马城 轰炸 （纽约：WW Norton，1998年），第320页。 XNUMX。

Pierce says McVeigh’s focus on ideas and the larger impersonal context reflects a masculine orientation, and that contrasts with a focus on feelings and the personal which reflects a feminine orientation. As Pierce sees it, McVeigh’s statement to the court was out of sync with the increasingly feminized world in which we live and thus was misunderstood and dismissed by the vast majority of those who heard or read about it. People couldn’t relate to what McVeigh had to say because he was operating outside the feminine frame of reference that has become more and more prevalent in our society.[501]皮尔斯，p。 1.

Another example of Pierce’s point about the feminization of this culture may have been seen in the nation’s response to the school shootings in recent years in Arkansas, Oregon, Colorado, Georgia, and elsewhere. Notably absent was outrage and anger that anyone would do such a terrible thing. (The first impulse of a vice-principal in Georgia was to hug the student who had just shot six of his classmates.) Absent too was moral condemnation of these vicious acts. And absent as well was the commitment to strike back hard at anyone who tries a cowardly and selfish stunt like that in the future. In Pierce’s eyes those would have been masculine responses to those events. Instead, we grieved and we were afraid and we looked to the government and its gun control laws and metal detectors to protect us. We tried to understand. We sought to communicate. We commiserated. The answer to our problems, we affirmed, is for everybody to be nice to one another and to make sure we are all safe. All of this, as Pierce sees it, reflects a feminine orientation toward life, which is not to say that it is bad in itself. It is, however, to note the absence of its masculine complement, and particularly it is to ask the question, where were, and are, our men?

Pierce quotes Henry Adams, the brother of Brooks Adams, whose book had such a strong impact on him in his Oregon State years, as writing, “Our age has lost much of its ear for poetry, as it has its eye for color and line and its taste for war and worship, wine and women.”[502]皮尔斯，p。 4. Ear for poetry and the rest—masculine qualities all in Pierce’s eyes.

It is the masculine spirit which appreciates women, which appreciates feminine qualities, and as this spirit declines, our taste for women loses its edge and becomes coarser. We move from an age in which women were not only appreciated but also treasured and protected into an age in which…feminine beauty is a mere commodity, like soybeans or crude oil; an age in which parents dump their daughters into the multiracial cesspool that America’s schools and cities have become to let them fend for themselves. In an age in which materialism and feminism are ascendant, this is the only way it can be. To attempt to make it otherwise—to attempt to decommercialize sex, for example—would be a blow against the economy, against the materialist spirit. And to elevate women again to the protected status they had in a more masculine era would be fought tooth and nail by feminists as a limitation on women’s freedom.[503]同上。
（皮尔斯，第 4 页。）

Not only has society lost its artistic sense and reverence, it has also lost much of its warrior spirit, argues Pierce. Pierce decries the large numbers of soft, dependent men he observes today. There have always been men like this around, he points out, but it seems that there are far more of them now than before. Pierce says that a true man has a firm sense of personal dignity and self-worth and is strongly self-reliant. In contrast to men of this sort, true men, real men, Pierce finds many of today’s men given to self-abasement and to be “weepy and submissive”—which turns Pierce’s stomach to see in any man. Pierce comes down particularly hard on today’s male university students, whom he looks upon as timid and lacking in boldness and pride. Pierce sees too many university men who are short in the area of independence, whiny when confronting adversity, and unwilling to endure hardship or to challenge obstacles.[504]William Pierce, “The Promise Keepers,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 12, December 1997, p. 7.

When getting at causes for this state of affairs among white men, Pierce points to the way boys are raised in contemporary times:

Most boys 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….[505]同上。
(William Pierce, “The Promise Keepers,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 12, December 1997, p. 7.)

Boys no longer are raised to be strong-willed, independent, and resourceful. That requires hardness and self-denial; it requires masculine rule during the formative years. A disciplined environment has given way to a permissive one, and so the child does not learn self-discipline….The child is not punished for disobedience, nor is he given the opportunity to fail and learn from the penalties that the real world holds for those who are not strong enough to succeed. And so boys grow up to be whiny and ineffective young men, who believe that a plausible excuse is an acceptable substitute for performance and who never can understand why the gratification they seek eludes them….[506]Pierce, “The Feminization of America,” p. 4.

On top of this, a Politically Correct education system 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 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 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 or 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.[507]同上，第。 7。
(Pierce, “The Feminization of America,” p. 4.)

Pierce says that people counter his argument that our society has become more effeminate by pointing out that masculinized women are more prominent now—female lawyers, executives, military officers, and the like. What these observers fail to comprehend, Pierce believes, is that as men become less masculine, women become less feminine. If you don’t see how what men are like affects what woman are like (and vice versa), says Pierce, you are missing an important part of the explanation for why women (and men) are as they are.[508]同上，第。 5。
(Pierce, “The Feminization of America,” p. 4.)

在一个 自由言论 article called “Marriage and White Survival,” Pierce takes note of the alarmingly high divorce rate in our society. He mentions that a friend of his is going through a traumatic divorce and that three small children are involved—he is obviously talking about Kevin Strom’s situation. Pierce says that over half the people he knows have had at least one failed marriage. Pierce says that it is getting harder and harder to hold marriages together in modern times. There are economic, social, and psychological reasons for this phenomenon, he tells his readers, and sketches out what he thinks they are.[509]William Pierce, “Marriage and White Survival,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 6, June 1997, p. 8.

Pierce says that historically marriages have been grounded in the “bedrock economic fact” that a well-defined division of labor increases the survival chances of the people involved. “If a man and woman worked together as a team,” Pierce writes, “with the woman keeping the homefront under control while the man brought home the bacon and chased the wolves away from the door, both gained a competitive advantage over unattached singles and were more likely to survive and prosper—not to mention the fact that their children were far more likely to survive than those engendered by unattached individuals.”[510]同上。
(William Pierce, “Marriage and White Survival,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 6, June 1997, p. 8.) Societal changes during the past half-century, however, have altered that circumstance. For one thing, increasingly women have been recruited into the workforce. The percentage of married women working outside the home has gone from virtually zero to seventy percent.[511]同上，第。 9。
(William Pierce, “Marriage and White Survival,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 6, June 1997, p. 8.) Pierce offers some of the reasons for this:

• There are more jobs now in the service sector of the economy that can be handled as well by women as men.
• Fewer jobs require a man’s strength to perform.
• Employers have come to see men and women as interchangeable economic units and don’t draw the distinction between men and women as they once did—they will hire anyone to do their work. After all, it is to employers’ advantage if women enter the world of paid work, as it increases the size of the labor pool and lowers the price of labor.
• Due to changes in consumption patterns, an escalating tax burden, and rising education costs, men have found that they alone can’t support a family.
• Technology has made long hours of housework less necessary. Sixty years ago clothes were washed by hand with a washboard in a washtub. There weren’t the modern fabrics that don’t need ironing as there are today. People used iceboxes rather than refrigerators. There weren’t frozen dinners and microwaves.
• Other factors for the breakdown of marriages that Pierce lists include:
• The growth of the welfare state has made it easier for a woman dissatisfied with married life to leave because she knows she has a claim on the earnings of others in the society to support her and her children.
• A century ago, most people lived within close-knit relationships in rural and small towns. In those contexts, divorce was looked upon as a scandalous occurrence and met with strong social disapproval and sanction. In the modern-day urban lifestyle, divorce isn’t accompanied by social stigma as it was, and to some extent still is, in smaller, less socially disconnected environments.
• The ascendance of modern feminism in recent decades has taken its toll on marital stability.

The feminists asserted that women were essentially the same as men, except for a few minor anatomical details, and that women didn’t need men in order to live a complete and fulfilling life. They insisted on being treated just like men. And of course, their cause was taken up by the government and by the Jewish media, which resulted in their doctrines influencing many otherwise sensible women.

Women consequently lost their special status. When they asserted that they no longer needed the protection or the support of men, many men took them at face value. Men decided that they no longer had a special obligation or responsibility to support and protect a woman. Deciding to shed a wife became much like deciding to change roommates. Feminism has eroded the traditional complementary relationship between men and women, which was a relationship based on their natural differences, and tried to replace it with equality, which is not in accord with reality. The result of this failed effort has been very traumatic for both men and women. In many cases it has turned natural affection to hostility on both sides. Just as many women have responded by becoming less feminine, many men have become less masculine. It has played havoc with the institution of marriage.[512]同上。
(William Pierce, “Marriage and White Survival,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 6, June 1997, p. 8.)

If that is the situation with marriage in our time, what are we to do about it according to Pierce? He proposes both short-run and long-run remedies.

As for short-run solutions to the problem, he is brief and to the point. “Unfortunately,” he advises, “about all we can do in the short run is try to minimize the trauma for ourselves as individuals. If you are a man and looking for a mate, steer clear of women who have been tainted by feminism; and if you’re a woman, be on your guard against men who have been ‘sensitized’ by the feminists.”[513]同上，第。 10。
(William Pierce, “Marriage and White Survival,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 6, June 1997, p. 8.)

And in the long run:

One of the easiest things we can do is simply to stop promoting the false and destructive doctrine of feminism. When our government, our schools, and our media recognize that men and women are different and complementary members of our society and have fundamentally different roles to fill, we’ll be a long way ahead.

Fixing the economic problems which beset marriage will be more difficult. It is hard to take women out of factories and offices and put them back in the home when most families have become accustomed to a life-style which requires two incomes to maintain. One of the reasons our grandmothers were able to stay at home and raise their children instead of dropping them off at a day-care center on the way to work was that our grandparents managed to do without many things that have come to be thought of as necessities today, so one income was sufficient for them. Outlawing credit cards and other forms of borrowing certainly would cut consumption and help more people get by on one income, but that probably would cause a revolution in itself, because our people have forgotten the old way of paying for things first and then having them.

We don’t need to go back to using washing boards and washtubs, but we can look forward to building a society in which economic policy and employment policy are made subordinate to the primary goal of promoting the racial and spiritual health of our people. One thing we can do is get rid of government welfare programs—no food stamps, no subsidized rents, no welfare checks, nothing. If churches want to set up soup kitchens or flop houses for the homeless, that’s their business, but no one should be forced to pay for the support of those who won’t work, male or female—nor should the dole be an attractive alternative to working or to keeping a marriage together.

And a career should not be quite as attractive or available an alternative to marriage for young women as it is now. Simply doing away with the government-imposed requirements for hiring and promoting women and leaving employers free to hire whom they choose will help a lot in this direction. And women could just forget about being soldiers.

We don’t need governmental coercion to make marriage healthy again. We just need an end to the governmental programs which have made it unhealthy. Without feminist propaganda and without government interference, the instincts of men and women will do most of what needs to be done to get things back on track again. Perhaps we can’t make things quite as sound as they were a century ago when most of us lived in much smaller communities, but we can make them a lot better than they are now.

The enemies of our people have convinced many women that being a housewife is a fate worse than death. Many of them believe that they absolutely have to be fighter pilots or corporate executives. And I’m not proposing making a law that they 不能 be corporate executives if they want to. I’m just saying that we shouldn’t pump them full of propaganda to convince them that they 应该 be. And we shouldn’t have laws which give them an artificial advantage in becoming corporate executives. I believe that the institution of marriage can tolerate a few female executives; just not as many as today….

If we do nothing, then our people will die. Our race will become extinct, and the earth will be inherited by the savages and degenerates of the non-White world. The birthrate for White women is far below the replacement level. There are fewer White Americans with each passing year. The White birthrate has fallen below the level necessary for replacement for pretty much the same reasons the divorce rate has gone up. As more women have left the home and joined the work force, they have decided to have fewer children. Children are a hardship on mothers who are obliged to hold down a full-time job outside the home. Children can lower a father’s standard of living. Worse, the women most susceptible to feminist propaganda, the ones most likely to choose a career instead of motherhood, tend to be the brightest and most capable, the ones who most need to have children and pass on their genes to the next generation.

So we really have no choice in the matter. We either start having and raising more healthy White babies or we die. Our race dies. We die.[514]同上，第10-11页。
(William Pierce, “Marriage and White Survival,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 6, June 1997, p. 8.)

An example of the kind of attention Pierce pays to the upbringing of girls is a 自由言论 article called “Choosing a Barbie” in which he tells his readers about “a really disgusting” story he had read in a California newspaper.[515]William Pierce, “Choosing a Barbie Doll,” 自由言论, vol. 5, no. 2, February 1999, pp.1-3. A white staff-writer for the paper had written a column relating an experience she had had with her seven-year-old daughter after the little girl had gone shopping for a Barbie Doll with her aunt. The little girl had come home in tears. When the writer/mother asked her daughter what was wrong, the seven-year-old replied, “In the toy store today, Auntie let me pick out whatever Barbie I wanted. And I moved a Black Barbie on the shelf out of the way to reach the White Barbie behind her. Does that make me prejudiced?” The writer said that her daughter was very confused and frightened by what she had done.

The question, Pierce recounted, then became, how is the mother going to respond. Pierce gives his version of what happened next.

When the mother heard this question she herself froze in terror. She didn’t know how to answer the question. She was afraid to answer simply, “No, dear, choosing the White doll instead of the Black doll doesn’t mean that you’re prejudiced.” She couldn’t give that answer because it would be dishonest. That answer would comfort her daughter at the moment, but it might lead the little girl into relaxing her vigilance and wandering even further down the path of Political Incorrectness. It might, heaven forbid, reinforce her preference for White over Black. On the other hand, if the mother answered the girl’s question honestly—”Yes, you vicious, little White racist, by shoving aside the Black doll you revealed your horrible, racist prejudice in favor of your own race”—then her daughter might not be able to handle the psychic trauma.

The mother’s own words in the newspaper were: “If I said yes, I feared I would scar her self-image for life. Her eyes pleaded with me not to confirm the worst.” Believe it or not, that’s exactly what this silly woman wrote in the newspaper: “If I said yes, I feared I would scar her self-image for life.” And yet, the mother was sure that “yes” was the honest answer, because she knew that all of us Whites have the original sin of racism in us, a sin which we are obliged to struggle all our lives to overcome and to pay all our lives in order to atone for. For the remainder of a long, hand-wringing article, the mother agonized over how to deal with this terrible dilemma.

The whole thing is surrealistic, like the sort of dream one might have after falling asleep with a really bad case of heartburn. But, unfortunately, that’s the way a great many Americans think these days. They really do get torn up over such things as how to be sure that they are raising their children to be both Politically Correct and self-contented.[516]同上，第2-3页。
(William Pierce, “Choosing a Barbie Doll,” 自由言论, vol. 5, no. 2, February 1999, pp.1-3.)

Pierce reports that the writer told of similar experiences other parents she knew had had with their children. Pierce says that what he finds revealing is it never entered the minds of the writer or any of these other parents to consider the possibility of affirming what were, at least in Pierce’s eyes, the natural and healthy expressions of preference by their children for their own kind. Nor had any of them thought about what and who had made their children feel so guilty and frightened if they followed their own instincts. Instead, says Pierce, all of these parents “cringed and groveled.” Pierce says that the mother who wrote the column decided what her daughter needed was

still more brainwashing—more children’s books full of multiculturalism and diversity, more Steven Spielberg films, et cetera. She coaxes her daughter to believe that the only reason she reached for the White doll instead of the Black doll was not that the White doll was the one she could identify with because it looked like her, but that she liked the lipstick on the White doll more than the lipstick on the Black doll. That rationalization made the mother and daughter both feel much better. And then before the daughter could backslide, the mother went out and bought her a Black Barbie doll, a mestizo Barbie doll, an Indian Barbie doll, etc. The mother concludes: “I decided if my daughter was going to play with Barbies they at least would be diverse.” Her play world now includes Arab, Native American, Latina, and African-American Barbies.[517]同上，第。 3。
(William Pierce, “Choosing a Barbie Doll,” 自由言论, vol. 5, no. 2, February 1999, pp.1-3.)

Pierce shares with his readers that while this mother obviously is proud of the way she dealt with her daughter’s situation, he felt sick after reading the story. “It’s easy to think ahead eight years or so,” writes Pierce, “to the time when this woman’s daughter is in a racially integrated high school and begins dating. When she has a choice between dating Black boys or White boys, she will remember her mother’s response to the Barbie doll dilemma. Her mother undoubtedly will be proud of her when she brings her first Black boyfriend home for dinner.”[518]同上。
(William Pierce, “Choosing a Barbie Doll,” 自由言论, vol. 5, no. 2, February 1999, pp.1-3.)

Pierce often refers in his radio programs and writings to the evils of the “New World Order.” In order to understand Pierce’s way of looking at things it helps to get a sense of what he means by New World Order and precisely what his problems are with this idea.

The concept of a New World Order was popularized by President George H. W. Bush during the last two years of his administration. As Bush articulated it, the New World Order had to do with a reordering of international relations following the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. The New World Order, he said, would be a new era marked by international cooperation, peace, and justice. Bush invoked the ideal of a New World Order to justify the 1991 Gulf War—Saddam Hussein was a contradiction to its principles and must be opposed. President Bill Clinton also called upon the concept of a New World Order to rationalize policies and programs he favored, the North American Free Trade Agreement being one example. During the debate over whether the Congress should approve the treaty, Clinton said that NAFTA was essential to the creation of a New World Order, which he associated with an era of greater harmony and equality among the countries in this hemisphere.

It would appear that for most people the idea of moving toward the creation of a New World Order has a positive ring to it. But to William Pierce a New World Order is precisely what he 不 want to see happen. To Pierce, the New World Order amounts to a global version of everything he abhors in domestic affairs. New World Order, multiculturalism, diversity, equality, democracy—all part of the same package as far as he is concerned. The New World Order just expands the context from America to the world. As Pierce sees it, the New World Order is what his enemies want to impose on the United States writ large.

So how does Pierce view the New World Order? As he defines it, the New World Order is a utopian scheme for a world government with the following major features: National boundaries will for all practical purposes cease to exist. An increased flow of third-world immigrants into the United States and Europe will produce a non-white majority everywhere in the formerly white areas. The economies of the United States and the other nations of the world will be globalized. Wage levels among the rich and poor peoples of the world will be equalized. An elite consisting of international businessmen and the heads of the news and entertainment media will call the shots, aided by politicians who are dependent upon this elite’s financial support and strengthened by the backing of democratic majorities marshaled by those among the elite who control the flow of information to the masses. International “peace-keeping” military forces will maintain order throughout the system and put down resistance to any of its policies.[519]William Pierce, “The New World Order,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 9, September 1997, p. 12.

Pierce identifies three types of people drawn to the idea of the New World Order—he calls them “the New World Order booster club.”[520]同上。
(William Pierce, “The New World Order,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 9, September 1997, p. 12.)

First, there are those he refers to as “the amoral, super-wealthy elements: cosmopolitan and raceless individuals who already wield a great deal of power through their wealth and who like to flatter themselves with the thought that they deserve even more power over the lives of the rest of us.”[521]同上。
(William Pierce, “The New World Order,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 9, September 1997, p. 12.) Within this group, says Pierce, are those who are involved in multinational business enterprises. International capitalists are hostile to national sovereignty, he says. National boundaries and any tendencies toward protecting national interests just get in the way of their business dealings and cut into their profits. What these individuals want, according to Pierce, is a global labor pool to exploit and a global market to milk. These business bosses see more profits for themselves if the world is converted into a worldwide plantation of sorts, with themselves in the role of its owners and overseers.

The second group in the New World Order booster club—and Pierce says this group is vastly more numerous than the first—are those who join up for reasons of ideology or fashion.[522]The following list is drawn from William Pierce, “The New World Economic Order,” American Dissidents Voices audio tape no. 587 (Hillsboro, WV: National Vanguard Books, 1994). Among them according to Pierce are:

• Leftist academics and clerics and shallow intellectuals. National sovereignty has had a bad odor with leftist academics and their semi-intellectual hangers-on for a long time, argues Pierce. The notion of a world government per the New World Order appeals to these people. Patriotism is an alien concept to them, and they are instinctively hostile to patriots. Concern for the interests of one’s own people is regarded as residual tribalism which must be eradicated. Patriotism is also contrary to the universalistic ideas held by many Christian clerics.
• Guilt-ridden Christians. Many of the Christian supporters of the New World Order, claims Pierce, are tormented by feelings of white racial guilt over the poor circumstance of the non-white hordes of the world. They see the New World Order as a way to equalize the races by redistributing the world’s wealth and to punish whites for their evil deeds by bringing them down to the level of the oppressed non-whites.
• Peace-and-order advocates. Among the backers of the New World Order are those who believe that in a world with weapons of mass destruction the only way for humanity to eliminate war and its associated evils and to be safe and secure is through the establishment of a New World Order. And then there are those who simply are attracted by the concept of a more orderly world under centralized control. Since the early part of this century, Pierce notes, groups such as the Council of Foreign Relations have been working behind the scenes politically and on the academic front to promote the idea of a New World Order. Pierce makes the point that despite their professed abhorrence of war many of these individuals and organizations were hot to unleash World War II, the most destructive and murderous war ever inflicted on the world, and supported the development and use of nuclear weapons in that war.
• Ambitious politicians. They go along with the New World Order campaign in order to receive a few choice scraps from the table.
• Homosexuals and feminists. Pierce says these people see the New World Order as the antithesis of the heterosexual, patriarchal world they hate with “insane fervor.”
• 平等主义者. They are hell-bent on equalizing everyone, offers Pierce, and the New World Order looks to them to move things in that direction.
• Fashion-conscious academics and literati. These people simply want to be fashionable, says Pierce. For them, it wouldn’t have to have been the New World Order. They would have enthusiastically gotten on any other bandwagon that was as skillfully propagated as this one has been.
• Shortsighted idealists. These are sane and principled people legitimately concerned about such things as world population and the on-going destruction of the global ecosystem who latch onto the New World Order as a vehicle for dealing with the issues they care about. Indeed, something needs to be done about their concerns, Pierce agrees. The problem with these people, however, says Pierce, is that they do not have the courage to deal in a realistic and forthright way—that is to say, his way—with the population explosion in the non-white world and all the other pressing demographic and ecological problems we face. Instead, they have opted for a solution to the self-destruction of the planet which allows them to persist in their comfortable illusions.

And then there is the third, and most important element, among the New World Order booster club. Of course, it is the Jews.

Clearly the Jews see a dominant role for themselves in a world government because of the power they already wield. Beyond this, with their highly leveraged situation—that is, their need to maintain their control over numerically much larger Gentile populations everywhere, increasing centralization of governmental power is the only strategy which makes sense for them. They have a tiger by the tail, and they dare not let go. Their great fear is that a strong and genuinely patriotic leader may arise in some nation, another Adolf Hitler, and he will succeed in breaking the Jewish control over his people and ending Jewish power in his nation. If that is permitted to happen in any major nation, it may spread quickly to other nations. That is why they pulled out all the stops to destroy Germany during the Second World War. And, if they were not already convinced, the Second World War redoubled their conviction that they must make every nation subordinate to a world government under their control….The Jews want a final end to the possibility of the resurgence of any nationalism—except their own of course. They want to eliminate forever the possibility that the people of the United States, Germany, Britain, or any other country except Israel will act on their own will.[523]Pierce, “The New World Order,” p. 14.

Pierce believes that the New World Order concept provides the basis for understanding and linking a number of seemingly unrelated issues. To illustrate his point he cites the ongoing debate between the advocates of free trade and protectionism. Pierce considers free trade to be central to the New World Order scheme and he strongly opposes the idea. It is Pierce’s position that in order for the United States to maintain its industrial base, autonomy, and standard of living, it must regulate imports of goods from other countries.

Pierce says the New World Order crowd has worked hard—and, he acknowledges, effectively—to create the impression in the mind of the public that protectionism is a misguided and morally corrupt policy. Americans have been told that free trade is a boon with no real downside. They will have access to more products at lower prices than they would have had if there had been trade barriers. “And don’t worry if a few American jobs go overseas,” the message to the public has gone. “We’ll more than make up for it with the growth of our export industries.” The free trade proponents have been very successful in linking free trade to the achievement of economic interdependence with other countries, a worthy goal in the eyes of most people. Pierce sees the media and the schools as having taught two generations of Americans the virtue of interdependence and cooperation rather than independence and competition. Pierce says that interdependence is “warm-and-fuzzy” and therefore a very attractive idea in this feminized era. In contrast, independence or a go-it-alone attitude

has been given a nasty flavor by these people. It is a Politically Incorrect concept. What we should have instead of independence and autonomy is interdependence. That is, all of the countries of the world should be dependent on each other to such a degree that no country can act unilaterally on any matter, but must first obtain the consent of all other countries on which it is dependent: like a big “family of nations.”….Perhaps you hadn’t noticed, but the most enthusiastic of the “free traders” are the people who are most enthusiastic about every other sort of egalitarian program, every other sort of racial mixing program, every other sort of program which promotes the interests of non-Whites to the disadvantage of Whites. Today’s “free traders” are the folks who were marching arm-in-arm with Black “civil rights” demonstrators a generation ago and were picketing the South African embassy a decade ago and are in favor of open borders and unrestricted immigration today. Being in favor of “free trade’ today and against national autonomy is a touchstone of Political Correctness.[524]William Pierce, “Thoughts on Free Trade.” 自由言论, vol.4, no.2, February 1998, pp 6-7.

在一个 自由言论 article entitled “Thoughts on Free Trade,” Pierce outlines his case against free trade.[525]Pierce, “Thoughts on Free Trade.” At the time Pierce wrote this piece, Asian economies had been experiencing a serious downturn, and some companies and individuals in this country had been hurt by it. Pierce noted that as the Asian economies had slowed and as their currencies had fallen relative to the dollar, Asians were not able to buy as much from American producers as before. The result was that American companies dependent on exports were in trouble and being forced to cut back on their operations and lay off workers. Pierce said that the problems in the Asian economy and their repercussions in this country were a good thing to the extent that they warn us of where economic interdependence leads. It might prompt Americans to ask themselves whether they really want to be dependent on China, Korea, Mexico, and a whole array of other Third World countries. As for Pierce himself: “I will tell you now that everything I intend to say on this subject is from the very unfashionable viewpoint of a man who believes that autonomy is one of the most precious possessions a nation can have. Autonomy is a prerequisite for freedom. A nation which gives away its autonomy soon will lose its freedom as well.”[526]同上，第。 6。
(Pierce, “Thoughts on Free Trade.”)

Pierce points to our growing dependence on imports from Asia.

We used to have a consumer electronics industry in America—televisions, VCRs, microwave ovens, and so on—and we also used to have a machine-tool industry: lathes, milling machines, and so on. Those industries have been wiped out—completely destroyed—by Asian competition. The same thing is happening in textiles, shoes, and a hundred other more or less basic industries: industries which are essential for national autonomy….The factories have been shut down and the skilled workers who used to make them are dishing out fries at McDonald’s. It would take us a year to tool up again and probably five years to really pick up steam in many of these basic industries.[527]同上，第。 8。
(Pierce, “Thoughts on Free Trade.”)

Pierce worries about what this circumstance will do to America’s autonomy as a nation. He thinks that the more we are dependent on other countries economically, the less we will be able to act unilaterally. Particularly he is concerned that foreign competition will drive essential industries out of this country. Then we will be in a position, he fears, of having to secure the agreement of the countries that supply us products necessary to our national well-being—machine tools, ball bearings, computer chips, or whatever else—before we can make a major move in international affairs.

Even if we do everything we can to maximize our efficiency, there are many products, Pierce points out, that American industries simply cannot produce and sell as cheaply as their Asian competitors can. He illustrates his point by noting that he purchased some strings of one hundred Christmas tree lights made in China for two dollars and fifty cents a string: “No American company can possibly produce and sell them that cheaply and remain in business—unless, of course, their labor is essentially unpaid.” And again, it is not just the lost American jobs that concerns him. It is the prospect of lost essential industries and thereby our autonomy. “We can get along without Christmas tree lights, but there are many other things we cannot get along without, and we are losing our ability to produce those things just as surely as we have been driven out of the Christmas tree light business.”

Pierce tells his readers that despite his criticisms of it, he is not against free trade altogether.

There are cases where unrestricted trade may be beneficial rather than harmful. If two trading partners already have a community of interests—which is to say, if their populations are very similar—then “free trade” will have the effect of binding them together and making them even more similar. Their wage scales and standards of living will tend to become equal. Eventually, their mores and ideas and attitudes also will become more similar. And their dependence on each other will grow. The individual partners will lose their autonomy. But if the populations already are essentially the same, then a new and larger autonomy will emerge. It’s a bit like a man and woman becoming married. Each gives up individual autonomy and freedom and develops a dependence on the other. But the two as a whole—the married couple—gains a new autonomy which may be better for each of the partners than before—provided the marriage is a good one, and that is a critical stipulation. We may want to contemplate a marriage with Canada, say, or with Britain, Germany, or Switzerland. But we should not even 考虑 a marriage with Mexico or China.[528]同上，第。 6。
(Pierce, “Thoughts on Free Trade.”)

The sort of marriage the New World Order types like best, says Pierce, is just the opposite from the kind he wants: where the partners are as unequal as possible, “a marriage with the least community of interests.”[529]同上。
(Pierce, “Thoughts on Free Trade.”)

Pierce says that to understand the issue of free trade one must understand its ideological and racial dimension:

For the trendy, air-headed liberals and media bosses who are the principle enthusiasts for “free trade,” it is not primarily an economic issue, rather it is an ideological issue, and the ideology is egalitarianism, raised from the individual level to the national level. They want America to lose her autonomy and her freedom and to become dependent on non-White nations, in the same way that they wanted White South Africans to become subservient to Blacks and in the same way that they wanted government-enforced racial integration of our schools and in the same way that they want the flood of Mexican, Haitian, and Chinese immigrants into our country to continue.

I’ll tell you a secret: the “free trade” issue is really a racial issue. The folks who were so hot to push NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) through wouldn’t have been so interested in it if it had involved just Canada and the United States. What appealed to them was the idea of increasing our dependence on Mexico, the idea of equalizing Brown Mexicans and White Americans. They’re not really interested in increasing our dependence on Sweden, Germany, or Poland; what appeals to them is making us more dependent on Nigeria, Vietnam, China, or Honduras. Their view of history is a vision of White bullies and exploiters pushing the non-White peoples of the world around, and this is a very painful vision for them. They would much rather have things the other way around—so long as they personally are not the White people being pushed around. They want to make sure that White people don’t have a chance to be bullies again. And the way to do that is to make us dependent on non-Whites.[530]同上，第7-8页。
(Pierce, “Thoughts on Free Trade.”)

Pierce says that in the long run free trade brings about a leveling of wages and standards of living among the workers of the various countries involved. When industrial production moves from a country with high wages to a country with low wages, he argues, the effect will be a reduction in the difference between the wage levels of the two countries. Wages in the country that gains the industry will rise and the other will fall. This is true whether the production is in the hands of nationally based companies or multinational corporations. If Ford closes a plant in Detroit and builds one in Mexico, wages will rise in Mexico and fall in the United States as displaced American workers are forced to find employment in a lower-salaried sector of the economy or make do with part-time jobs. Another possibility, wives will leave their children and find work outside the home to compensate for their husbands’ lost income. Pierce points to what is happening in the American clothing industry as an example of what he is talking about.

American women who work at sewing machines in American factories earn about $10 an hour, plus medical and other benefits. Korean or Guatemalan women doing the same work receive about one dollar per hour and no fringe benefits. The consequence is that American clothing factories are shutting down, one after another, and the companies are having the work done in Korea or Guatemala. The clothes are then shipped back to America, where the yuppies and the couch potatoes can buy them for less than if they were made with American labor, and the companies can make more profit. But the American women who were making $10 per hour plus benefits are being forced into minimum-wage work. Wages gradually rise in Korea and Guatemala, while they gradually fall in America.[531]同上，第。 8。
(Pierce, “Thoughts on Free Trade.”)

There is some evidence that gives credence to Pierce’s contentions. Between 1982 and 1997, goods imported to the United States as a percentage of domestic production rose from 15.3 percent to 39.3 percent. In the manufacturing sector, employment dropped by 2.5 million positions between 1979 and 1997. The sector that added the most jobs during this period—7.1 million—was retail sales. This would seem to indicate that American workers are increasingly being hired to sell products produced elsewhere. The typical manufacturing job pays much more than one in retail sales and usually comes with far more substantial health and retirement benefits. Taking inflation into account, despite the seven economically “fat” years in the 1990s, the pay of the typical worker in 1998 was not as high as it was in 1989. Men and women didn’t take the economic hit equally, however, as the median level of men’s real wages fell 6.7 percent during this period while women’s actually rose slightly. Since 1975 the percentage of women with children under the age of six who are employed outside the home has gone up from thirty-eight percent to sixty-five percent. These data are consistent with the theory that American women are saving families and men from declining living standards by seeking employment outside the home.[532]William Hawkins, “Globalization and the Decline of the Family,”

编年史, vol. 23, no. 5, May 1999, pp. 42-43.

Although factory workers are first to be hit with the transfer of American industry out of the country, eventually most other segments of the workforce will suffer as well, warns Pierce—”even the yuppies and others who would never think of working with their hands.”[533]Pierce, “Thoughts on Free Trade,” p. 8. Those kinds of people are happy now because they can still buy more consumer goods for less money, he says, but the consequences of free trade will catch up with them eventually, just as it already has caught up with our workers in industries dependent on exports to Asia and with our workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas. And when it starts happening to them, they won’t be so happy anymore.

Pierce says the promoters of free trade are counting on the process of increasing interdependence and wage equalization moving slowly enough so that Americans won’t become alarmed and try to pull back before the process has gone so far that they can no longer extricate themselves.

It’s a bit like the old story of cooking the frogs slowly enough so that they don’t realize they’re being cooked until it is too late to try to jump out of the cooking pot. The idea now is to keep the yuppies and couch potatoes reasonably happy, pay off the unemployed textile workers with extended government benefits taken from taxes on those who are still employed, and keep everybody intimidated and confused with a steady flow of propaganda from the controlled media to make people think that they will be condemned as racists if they object to “free trade” policies. If the media bosses can pull it off, it will be one more demonstration of their ability to persuade a Gentile nation to commit mass suicide.[534]同上，第8-9页。
(Pierce, “Thoughts on Free Trade,” p. 8.)

Another example Pierce offers to show how the New World Order concept puts things in perspective is around the problem of immigration to this country. Immigration is a particularly important issue to Pierce. In a broadcast called “Non-White Immigration” Pierce asserted that during the past few decades America has been “darkening,” that is to say, becoming less white.[535]17. William Pierce, “Non-White Immigration,” 美国持不同政见者之声 audio tape 631 (Hillsboro, WV: National Vanguard Books, 1995). Also, see two books that are favorites among those who are on Pierce’s side of the political spectrum: Jean Raspail, 圣徒营 (New York: Charles Scribner’s and Sons, 1975); and Brent Nelson, 美国Balkanized: Immigration’s Challenge to Government (Monterey, VA: The American Immigration Committee, 1994). He said that the “floodgates” have been opened and that people from the non-white world have been pouring into this country legally and illegally. Pierce was primarily talking about Asians and “mestizos,” as he refers to the mixed-blood people from Latin America. (Kevin Strom in his introduction to the audio tape of that broadcast said that more non-white immigrants are coming to our shores each day than hit the beach at Normandy on D-Day.) In the broadcast, Pierce said that if you live on a farm in Kansas you might not notice what has happened, but if you live in Florida, California, or New York City you certainly have noticed it—”you have had your face rubbed in it.”

At some time in the next century, whites will become a minority in North America, and the flood will continue. And the television propaganda telling us that the flood of non-whites is really a good thing will continue too. The politicians will continue to sing the praises of diversity and multiculturalism in tune with the television. We will be told if we object to the flood we are haters and racists. Interracial sex will continue to be presented as fashionable by the media, and what was a white country fifty years ago will gradually become a brown country. Of course, even a hundred years from now there may be some super-rich white families who will be able to keep their heads above the flood on their own private islands with their own private security forces, but for the rest of us there will be no white schools, no white neighborhoods, no white clubs or bars or restaurants. We’ll be submerged as a people. That is the way it has been planned and that is the way it will happen—not may happen but will happen if we don’t interfere, if we just keep watching TV, paying our taxes, and voting for the Democrats or the Republicans.[536]Pierce, “Non-White Immigration.”

Pierce says that every race of people has a unique spark, including whites, and that if we don’t stop being participants rather than spectators in life and take responsibility for the course of history, our spark will be extinguished forever by a tide of foreign influences that will engulf us. He says it won’t happen next year or in the next decade. It won’t happen in our lifetimes or in the lifetimes of our children and their children. But eventually, in a century or two—a very short time in the history of mankind—it will happen. That is what is at stake in all of this, declares Pierce.

Pierce is convinced that stopping the hoard of illegal aliens crossing our borders each year and deporting the illegals already in this country would be an easy thing to do if the government really wanted to do it. But the government doesn’t really want to do it. Why doesn’t the government want to do it? Because, says Pierce, clamping down on illegal immigrants doesn’t line up with the program of the New World Order. “The New World Order schemers have the ultimate aim of creating a homogeneous population of coffee-colored serfs—docile, predictable, and interchangeable,” exclaims Pierce. “They don’t want any large reservoir of White people anywhere who might rebel.”[537]同上。
(Pierce, “Non-White Immigration.”) As for the United States, Pierce believes the people in charge want to keep non-whites coming into the country and promoting their racial mixing and anti-discrimination ideas and policies. This will homogenize the American population and destroy its white character gradually without whites catching on to what is happening and offering any concerted resistance. The question for Pierce is whether white Americans are going to realize what is going on and oppose it.

Another example Pierce cites of how the idea of a New World Order makes sense of things is the current campaign in this country to enact hate crime legislation. Pierce views this effort as part of a much larger campaign to scrap the Bill of Rights and silence those, like him, who would “blow the whistle” on the New World Order campaign and organize resistance to its implementation.

What we see when we look closely at the principal backers of the New World Order and at the people who have been the loudest in their demands for curbs on First Amendment rights, in their demands for the elimination of all Second Amendment rights, and in their calls for government behavior contrary to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments as well, all in the name of increasing public security—what we see is that these are the same people. The people who want to outlaw what they call “hate speech,” the people who want to confiscate all private firearms, the people who believe that Political Correctness should take precedence over the right to due process and a speedy trial, to freedom from double jeopardy, from being compelled to testify against oneself, and from unlawful search and seizure—all these are fervent promoters of the New World Order. All of the people who have been scheming for the New World Order understand that the one thing which could upset their applecart is a rebellion by White patriots, and they’re determined to have the government tighten its grip on the people in order to prevent a rebellion from taking place.[538]William Pierce, “The New World Order,” p. 15.

A last illustration of how Pierce uses the New World Order concept was his response to the United States military actions against the Serbs in their conflict with ethnic Albanians in the Yugoslavian province of Kosovo. Pierce believes that the major reason that we took after the Serbs as we did was because they weren’t going along with the New World Order’s multiethnic social experiment. The Serbs wanted to live among other Serbs and were refusing to let outsiders tell them how to run their country, and that wasn’t acceptable. An example had to be made of them lest other countries might think they can get away with bucking the New World Order program. That was Pierce’s cut on it.

Pierce devoted a series of radio programs to this matter in April of 1999. The first one, broadcast on April 3rd, Pierce called “Hands off Yugoslavia.”[539]William Pierce, “Hands Off Yugoslavia,” 美国持不同政见者之声 broadcast, April 3, 1999.

I want to make something clear: I do not approve of rape, torture, and throat-cutting as a means of settling ethnic conflicts in the Balkans, whether it is the Serbs or the Albanians or some other group committing the atrocities. I believe that ethnic cleansing can be done without atrocities. I am sure that some atrocities have occurred in Kosovo province, because that’s the way things always have been done in the Balkans. I’m also sure that the media bosses in America have exaggerated atrocities committed by Serbs and ignored atrocities committed against Serbs….

But really, it’s not the conflict between Serbs and Albanians that should be our principal concern here. What we should be concerned with is America’s policy of killing people who refuse to obey the New World Order gang. We should not let our armed forces be used as a private death squad by [Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright. We should be concerned about the Clinton government’s policy of ignoring the sovereignty of other countries and calling in missile strikes whenever we don’t like the way they’re conducting their internal affairs. And the disagreement between Albanians and Serbs in Yugoslavia’s Kosovo province is strictly an internal affair in the sovereign country of Yugoslavia. When we attacked Yugoslavia last week we were committing raw, naked aggression against a sovereign country. Running around the world doing that sort of thing is not conducive to stability or to world peace, regardless of Mr. Clinton’s attempts to justify it. America is clearly in the wrong in the present war against Yugoslavia….

Pierce told me that this program received an especially strong response. The number of web site “hits” in the period immediately following the broadcast’s posting on the National Alliance Web site was twice what it usually is, and he received hundreds of supportive letters and e-mail messages.

On the April 24th 美国持不同政见者之声 program called, appropriately enough, “The New World Order,” Pierce said:[540]William Pierce, “The New World Order,” American Dissidents Voices broadcast, April 24, 1999.

General Wesley Clark, the general in charge of NATO and of the current effort to impose a “new internationalism” on the Serbs using cruise missiles, said it as plainly as anyone. Just a few days ago General Clark enunciated the general philosophy of the New World Order and the specific motivation for the assault on Yugoslavia when he told a CNN reporter, “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That is a 19th-century idea, and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.”….

The men who wrote our Constitution certainly understood that we might have to fight wars in order to defend our territory or our national interests….But they certainly did not condone the United States sending its armed forces off to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries which are not harming or threatening us. Nor did they intend for our armed forces to be the plaything of the President or anyone else in our government, to be used for furthering some pet project of his overseas. They specifically reserved to the elected representatives to the people the power to wage war against another country….

The real question is, what are we old-fashioned, 19th- and 20th-century-style Americans going to do about the misappropriation of our country and our future by the New World Order gang?

Pierce believes that the one force that can stand up effectively to the New World Order is nationalism, his own white nationalism being one brand of it. He writes:

Nationalism is the one force which can thwart them, the one political ideology active on a large scale in the world today in which money is not the primary concern. That is why any success by nationalists anywhere in the world today, any declaration of independence from the global plantation is good news for decent, freedom-loving people everywhere. It is good news when it happens in Germany, Hungary, or France….

We in the National Alliance are not nationalists in the old-fashioned sense, in the sense of geographical nationalism. We don’t belong to the “USA, right or wrong” crowd, which considers any featherless biped claiming U.S. citizenship, regardless of race, color, or creed, as a compatriot. Our nationalism is really racial nationalism. Our compatriots are our fellow White men and women, our fellow Europeans, everywhere: in America, in Europe, in South Africa. Nationalism in our sense—racial nationalism—is still a relatively new thing as a political ideology, although it is based on instincts much older than any ideology.

A lot of people, conservatives especially, are still much more comfortable with the old-fashioned sort of nationalism—or with an ethnic nationalism which is much more limited in scope than our racial nationalism. Conservatives are more comfortable with Scottish nationalism or German nationalism or Polish nationalism. And that’s all right. We encourage these more limited ethnic nationalisms. We encourage any nationalism which is not anti-European or anti-White. We even welcome Black nationalism, Hindu nationalism, or Chinese nationalism, because nationalists of every variety are facing a much bigger threat today than any rival nationalism. Intelligent Hindu nationalists understand that Irish nationalists, Ukrainian nationalists, and Swedish nationalists need not be hostile to them, and we understand that too.

Every national group which is concerned with preserving itself, with preserving its unique racial culture, traditions, and life-styles, is the natural ally of every other nationally conscious group at a time when all of us are faced with the threat of the New World Order…a plantation without national boundaries, with a homogenized population, and a uniform standard of living for the serfs—every nationality will be lost permanently in the mass. Now is the time to derail this nightmare scheme for global subjugation, and any nationality, Hindu or other, which helps in derailing it, by whatever means, deserves our praise.[541]William Pierce, “Nationalism and the New World Order,” 自由言论, vol. 4, no. 5, May 1998, p. 12.

In a number of radio programs and writings, Pierce has outlined his perspective on the nature and history of those he considers his people—white Europeans—and offered his vision of their future in this country. I drew on eight of these sources to compile the following statement. The words below are Pierce’s. I have added headings to put them into context.

Rediscovering our roots

A society is a very complex thing: it is like a living organism. It responds to selective environmental forces, and it evolves. In past ages it was the struggle of our people to survive, the competition of our people against other peoples, other races, which determined the nature of our society. Societies which functioned well survived. Societies which didn’t function well perished. Historically, if some crazy liberal came along and was able to change all the rules and structures in a society to suit some egalitarian fantasy of his, the society would sink like a rock, and its people would perish. And that is what is happening to our society today, although it may not be apparent to us because of the time scale. After the experimenters finish their deadly work, it may take a society two hundred years to disintegrate completely and sink out of sight. That’s not long from a historical viewpoint, but it’s long enough so that most of the people involved never realize what’s happening.

The society we had in Europe up until the end of the eighteenth century—or one may say, the various societies there, which really were very much alike when compared with any non-European society—had evolved over a period of many, many generations of our people, and it had fine-tuned itself to our special nature. It had developed its institutions and its ways of doing things which suited us as a people and allowed us to form viable, efficient communities. When we colonized North America and other parts of the world, we took the essential elements of our society with us.

And what were those essential elements?

The first essential element was order. Everyone had a place in our society, whether he was the village blacksmith or the king, and he knew what that place was. He knew how he fitted in, what his responsibilities were, to whom he owed loyalty and respect, and to whom he in turn was obliged to provide guidance. It was a hierarchical society. There was no pretense that everyone was just as capable or just as creative or just as brave or just as suited for leadership as anyone else. People had social rank and social status and social authority commensurate with their social responsibilities and with their contributions to society. The master craftsman had a higher social rank than a journeyman, who in turn had a higher rank than an apprentice. The landowner with a thousand acres who employed a hundred workers on his land had a higher social rank than the man who only owned an acre and worked his land himself, but he also had more social responsibilities. He had a responsibility for the welfare and discipline of his workers, for example. And the master craftsman had a responsibility to provide proper guidance for his apprentices and to uphold the standards of his craft.

The fact that our society was orderly and people knew their place didn’t mean that it was inflexible. The apprentice, through diligence and talent could become a journeyman; and a journeyman might eventually become a master. And the man with only one acre might buy more land and hire workers if he used the land he already had in a productive way and accumulated savings. But the shirker or the wastrel or the incompetent could never expect that the government would tax his more successful neighbors in order to reward him for his failure and bring him up to their level.

The second essential feature that our society had was homogeneity. Everyone had the same roots, the same history, the same genes, the same sensibilities. Or at least, there was enough genetic similarity, there was a close enough family relationship among the people, so that people understood each other. A village, a province, a nation, was like a large extended family. People felt a sense of kinship, a sense of belonging, a sense of loyalty and responsibility that extended to the whole society. This feeling of belonging, this sense of a common history and a common destiny, this sense of identity, was the glue that held the society together and gave it its strength. And it gave men and women their individual strength too. Just knowing who they were, where they had been, and where they were going made an enormous difference in their sense of personal security, in their ability to plan ahead and be reasonably confident of what the future held for them.

This homogeneity and the consequent sense of family, of identity, was thousands of years in developing, just like the hierarchical order in our society. And we developed as individuals, we evolved, along with our society. The type of society we had became imprinted on our genes. Of course, it wasn’t a perfect society. It was full of problems and imperfections. We always were developing new technologies, for example, and our society didn’t always have time to adjust itself to these innovations before even more innovations came along. But it was a society in which we were strong and confident and more or less spiritually healthy.

The Industrial Revolution really was a huge shock to our traditional form of society. It took people off the farms and out of the villages and packed them into factory towns like sardines in a can. This was a great strain on the old order. The new relationship between factory owner and factory workers was not as healthy a one as had existed between landowner and workers on the land, nor was the new, urban lifestyle as spiritually healthy as the village lifestyle.

We were learning gradually to cope with some of the changes in our society which accompanied the Industrial Revolution—our social order gradually was beginning to adjust itself—when the liberals and the Jews launched their assault. Unrest and revolution were fomented from the latter part of the eighteenth century and throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: egalitarianism, communism, democracy, equal rights, no responsibilities, welfare programs, feminism. The old order was drowned in blood. In France the aristocrats and the landowners were butchered in response to the resentments which the liberals had stirred up among the rabble. Later, in Russia the same process took place when the Jewish Bolsheviks finally gained the upper hand and butchered not just the aristocrats but everyone who had worked a little harder and been a little more successful than the rabble. The kulaks—small farmers and landowners—were murdered en masse, by the millions, in order to “equalize” Russian society and destroy the last traces of the old, hierarchical order.

Amid the social chaos of the twentieth century, the enemies of our people were able to introduce their idea of racial equality alongside their idea of social equality. We were told that the descendants of our slaves are just as good as we are—maybe better—and so they should become our social equals. We should bring them into our schools and neighborhoods, and we should intermarry with them, and we should buy food stamps for them with our taxes, and we should give them preference in hiring and promotions. And we should open our borders to all of the non-white wretched refuse of the Third World’s teeming shores. They also are our equals, we are told. The more diversity the better. Diversity is our strength. Blah, blah, blah.

We were too disoriented and confused by the destruction of our social order to resist this poisonous propaganda. And so here we are at the beginning of the twenty-first century. There are some people who will try to convince you things have never been better. We certainly have more equality and less order, more diversity and less homogeneity than ever before. And that obviously suits some people, in addition to the liberals and the Jews who are pushing for these changes.

But are these changes better for us? The suicide statistics, the drug statistics, the crime statistics, and the mental illness statistics give us a part of the answer. These statistics should help us keep our grip on reality when the Jewish media try to persuade us that we need more of the same poison they have been dishing out for so long: more equality, more chaos, more diversity. We should be able to look into our own souls for the rest of the answer. We should know that we need again to have an ordered, structured society, in which we all have a place and will be appreciated according to how effectively we fill that place. We should know that we need again to have a homogeneous society, in which we can feel a sense of belonging. We should know that we need a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty. We should know that we need a society in which everyone strives for quality, not for an imaginary equality. We should know that in order to be spiritually healthy again we need a society in which we can feel a sense of rootedness and responsibility rather than the aimless, wandering, rootless, cosmopolitan egoism which characterizes American society today….[542]William Pierce, “Toward a Healthy Society,” 自由言论, vol.3, no. 5, May 1997, pp. 12-15.

The limitations of democracy

There are two principal reasons that democracy has turned against our people: first, the results a people obtain from a democracy depend on the quality of the electorate; and second, the influence of the mass media on the democratic process has been overwhelming.

The first reason simply tells us that we should expect a democracy to work better when we have a responsible, intelligent, moral, and racially-conscious electorate than when we have an electorate of overweight couch potatoes, basketball fans, trendy airheads, and hymn-singers. And certainly the average quality of white voters has declined sharply from the time of the Founding Fathers to the present. Today, we have a less manly and much softer, more impressionable, vulgar, and irresponsible electorate than we had in the nineteenth century—and I’m talking only about white voters.

The influence of the mass media on this more feminine and impressionable electorate—an influence which has become overwhelming in this century with the development first of radio and then of motion pictures and television—has made a mockery of the whole concept of democracy as a system of government by the mass of the people who make their choices on the basis of their own innate values and attitudes. The masters of the mass media can and do manipulate the emotions and the opinions of the public on every issue of importance to themselves. They can and do set the political fashions of the day. They can and do form the image in the mind of the public of every candidate for public office.

Democracy in America today is no longer rule by the mass of people; that is only the outward appearance of our system today. What we really have is an oligarchy, and the oligarchs are the people who own and control our mass media. Through the manipulation of public opinion and the images of candidates, the mass media constrain the flow of public policy within boundaries chosen by their masters. The really disastrous thing about this oligarchy is that the oligarchs are for the most part not even of our people but rather are of a people wholly alien to us.

The consequences of rule by this alien oligarchy, which hides behind the pretense of democracy, is that we have amoral and irresponsible political leaders whose only concern is pleasing the oligarchs and thereby advancing their own careers….They are politicians—really, more actors, more showmen, than statesmen—who are addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people and nations, but who have no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people they pretend to lead. With democratic politicians of this sort, obedient to the will of the hidden oligarchs of the media, white people have been led into two horribly destructive and fratricidal world wars in this century which killed millions of the best people in our race, wars which led to the rise of communism and to its flourishing for more than seventy years, wars which weakened our race to the point that the oligarchs are now in the final stages of consolidating their domination of us in what they gloatingly refer to as their “New World Order.”

If the modern world has become such that real democracy no longer is feasible, if we 必须 be ruled by oligarchs, then let us do whatever we must do to insure, first, that those oligarchs are of our own people and not of an alien race; and second, that they are moral, responsible, and racially-conscious men whose primary concern is the destiny of our race. We can have that.[543]William Pierce, “Democracy ,” Free Speech, vol. 4, no. 7, July 1998, p. 4.

The nature of patriotism

What has changed in America during the past fifty years to erode the sense of patriotism so much? If you think about it for a minute, you’ll know the answer. The average white person can no longer look on America as his family. He no longer feels a part of it. It’s just the place in which he happened to have been born and happens to be living. He no longer feels a sense of kinship with all other Americans. The reason he doesn’t is primarily the result of the enormous increase in what liberals and the media fondly call “diversity”: that is, the great increase in the number of people with whom we feel nothing in common—people with different roots, people who look different, think differently, behave differently, and have different values—people whom we cannot even imagine being part of our family. When we look at America and see a great many people like that, when we see all of this “diversity,” then we no longer feel ourselves a part of America. We no longer feel a sense of loyalty to America….

The Jews in the media still hate and fear patriotism as much as ever. They have tried to make it a dirty word. And they have succeeded pretty well among the trendy yuppies and the urban rabble over whom they have the strongest influence. They hold up the militias as the epitome of patriotism, and they try to frighten the lemmings with the specter of the angry, rural, white male with a gun and an American flag who is threatening the government which provides them their welfare checks….

Of course, Jews understand the idea of loyalty based on blood, on kinship, on common roots. That’s the kind of loyalty they have for each other and to Israel, but they don’t want us to have that. They know how powerful that is. They hate the idea of us being united by such a sense of patriotism. They hate it and fear it. And that is why they’ve been working so hard to undermine old-fashioned American patriotism and replace it by allegiance to a faceless, raceless, rootless, cosmopolitan New World Order—under their control, of course….

No matter how fashionable they make their idea of a New World Order among the liberals and the politicians, it is an unnatural idea. Liberals may gush about equality and the “brotherhood of man” and the human race being the only race to which they feel loyalty, but that is empty sophistry. Fools may let themselves be convinced that they have become raceless, cosmopolitan patriots—patriots of the New World Order—but one will find very few of them who are willing to die or even make any major sacrifice for this new pseudo-patriotism.

Real patriotism is not some artificial idea dreamed up by the Jews. It is something based in our genes, an instinct, an extension of the instinct for self-preservation to include our kin, our nation. One can undermine that patriotism by muddying and confusing the concept of nation, the image of nation, as has been done during the past half-century by promoting “diversity.” When the enemies of our people, with the collaboration of the treasonous politicians in Washington…when these enemies infiltrate tens of millions of immigrants into our country and stifle any effort to halt the flood, when they subsidize the breeding of a non-white underclass in our cities with our own tax money, when they force us to accept these growing non-white masses into our schools and neighborhoods and workplaces, when they saturate all the news and entertainment media with the alien faces, alien tones, and alien antics of these non-whites and gloatingly tell us that we’d better get used to the idea of becoming a minority in our own land within the next fifty years, then, of course, the patriotism which came naturally to our people in the past becomes meaningless….

The process of social atomization, of deracination, of separating people from their roots and cutting the bonds to their natural communities so that they can become interchangeable units—human atoms—for building the New World Order is being promoted ruthlessly by the Jews and their collaborators, and the rising incidence of treason is only one of the smaller and less important consequences of this genocidal process.

I say this process is genocidal, because it will certainly destroy us as a people, as a race, as well as destroying us as a nation. People with no sense of patriotism are people unable to defend themselves collectively. They are people who will be victimized by any group which still has a group feeling….

We let our idea of patriotism gradually drift from a racial idea to a geographical idea, a political idea. When our ancestors in Europe were defending their people against the Huns or Moors or Turks, they understood patriotism. Even after the rise of all of Europe’s national states, when patriotism began expressing itself as nationalism, it still had a racial—or at least an ethnic—basis. The words themselves tell us what their original meanings were. Patriotism, of course, comes from the Roman word for “father.” Patriotism is love of the fatherland, love of the land inhabited by all the people descended from a common father. Nationalism also comes to us from the Romans, from the Latin word for “birth.” A nation is a group of people related by birth, by blood, and nationalism is love for that people, loyalty to that people. These feelings of patriotism or nationalism are very powerful feelings, because they are natural feelings. They contributed to our survival over a very long period of evolution.

But when we forget the racial meaning of patriotism and think of it only in geographical or political terms, as loyalty to every person, of whatever race, color, or creed, who happens to be living within a specific geographical area at the moment, then patriotism is no longer a natural feeling, but instead becomes artificial, and consequently much easier to subvert. And that is what has happened…to more and more white Americans all the time, as the growth of “diversity” proceeds.

The cure for this disease, for this erosion of patriotism, is not difficult to find. It is obvious. It is simply to understand and assimilate our patriotism as it originally was. The cure for what is happening to America begins by returning to the natural, race-based patriotism that our ancestors had….[544]William Pierce, “The Nature of Patriotism,” 自由言论, vol. 3, no. 4, April 1997, pp. 2-5.

A white future

White people have always struggled. We always have resisted alien domination. We are a race of conquerors, of inventors, of builders, not slaves or couch potatoes. We always have fought for a better future instead of just relaxing and letting other people tell us what was good for us. A very troublesome trait, this determination to be masters of our own destiny, this determination to live in accord with our innate values instead of someone else’s, this determination to hang onto our traditions and our lifestyle and to do things our way. This troublesome trait of ours is really a big obstacle to the planners of the New World Order, who want us just to relax and not struggle while they mix us with Haitians and mestizos and Vietnamese to produce a blend without racist traditions or racist habits or racist ambitions to shape our own destiny.

So why do we not want to be blended? Why do we insist on remaining a race of conquerors, inventors, and builders; a race of explorers; a race of poets, philosophers, and dreamers; a proud race, an independent race, a race with our own traditions, instead of the agreeable, placid race of coffee-colored consumers and couch potatoes those nice Jews in the media and those nice politicians in Washington want us to be? I guess the best answer to that question is that that’s just the way we are. That’s our God-given nature, and we want to keep it. In fact, we are determined to keep it, and by God, we’ll send all those who try to take it away from us straight to hell.

The white future I dream about, the white America that I want for my people is an America of proud, independent men—manly men—and feminine women. It is an America based on our history and our traditions and our ways: history and ways and traditions we brought here from Europe. It will be an America governed by our values and our standards: our standards of behavior, our standards of performance, our standards of quality, our standards of beauty. It will be an America where little white boys and little white girls go to schools and learn how to be proud and productive white men and women. It will be an America where there are no advertisers trying to push racial mixing by putting a few black and mestizo and Asian faces into every group illustration, advertisers who like to pair off white girls with black boys in their ads. It will be an America without drugs and without rap music and without the dark faces and alien sounds which pervade our cities today.

Can you imagine such an America? We used to have a white America back before the Second World War. Ask your parents or grandparents about it. Go to the library and look at some of the old magazines published back in the 1920s and 1930s. Look at the advertisements in these old magazines and compare them with the advertisements produced today. Yes, even New York City was once white. Los Angeles was white, except for its Chinatown. Look at the nineteenth-century paintings. Look at the photographs taken before the Second World War of scenes on university campuses, of street scenes in American cities, of sports events, of outdoor recreation. The people are all white. That is hard to imagine today, isn’t it, but seventy-five years ago one could walk through downtown Los Angeles or New York and hardly ever see a non-White face.

Of course, in a white America we still will have problems to overcome; that’s what life is all about, overcoming problems. We still will have a certain amount of crime, even without non-whites, who commit the majority of crimes of violence and vice in America today. Although our streets and homes will be much, much safer than they are today, we still will have criminals—but we will know how to deal with our criminals. In this regard, let me recite for you a little poem written by one of the truly great English poets, Rudyard Kipling. It is a poem you won’t find in our schools today. It was written in a saner, prouder, whiter, less Jewish time, a much less hypocritical time. It is titled “The Stranger.” Kipling wrote:

我门口的陌生人
他可能是真实的，也可能是善良的，
但是他不说我的话-
我感觉不到他的想法。
我看到了脸，眼睛和嘴巴，
但不是背后的灵魂。

我自己的股票的人
他们可能生病或好病，
但是他们告诉我我会撒谎的谎言，
他们习惯了我说的谎言。
而且我们不需要口译员
当我们去买和卖。

The stranger within my gates,
他可能是邪恶的或善良的，
但我不知道是什么权力控制——
是什么原因影响了他的心情；
也不是遥远之地的众神
应收回他的血液。

我自己存货的人，
可能会很糟糕
但是，至少，他们听到了我听到的东西，
并看到我所看到的东西；
无论我如何看待他们及其喜欢的事物
They think the likes of me.

这是我父亲的信念
这也是我的：
让玉米全部捆起来-
and the grapes be all one vine,
我们的孩子的牙齿咬紧了吗
通过苦面包和酒。

That was Rudyard Kipling’s view of things a century ago, and it also was the view of most of our people in a time before they had been deceived and led astray by the alien masters of the mass media.

A feeling of community, a feeling of family, a feeling of common blood and common soul and common history and common destiny: that is what it takes to make a viable nation, and that is what we must have again if America is to survive. A white future for America is much more than a material thing; it is much more than safe streets and clean cities and a lower crime rate; it is much more that a huge reduction in taxes for the support of welfare queens; it is much more than a more efficient and productive workforce and an end to the injustice of affirmative action. It is more than all these things: it is a spiritual thing, this feeling that one’s neighbors are one’s kin; this looking on white faces and feeling a genuine sense of brotherhood that rises from the heart—not the strained sense that one 应该 to feel brotherly when one looks on alien faces; this feeling of sharing in their joy when one looks on a young white couple in love—not the sense of obligation to give a Politically Correct smile when one passes a racially-mixed couple and tries unsuccessfully to suppress the rage in one’s heart.

There are young people growing up today who have never known what it means to live in a white country, who have never known the feeling of racial community which one can feel in a white environment and which Americans used to take for granted. They have been robbed of this knowledge by the people who for their own selfish purposes have taken over our mass media and swamped us with their poisonous propaganda of rootlessness and cosmopolitanism and the wonders of the “melting pot”—and by the politicians who have implemented their destructive racial policies: policies which have darkened America so noticeably during the past fifty years.

My dream of a white America is not nostalgia. I know that we can never return to the past. But I also know that if we are ever to move forward again we have to get rid of this racial mess which has engulfed America. I know that no multiracial society can be a healthy or stable society. Some people who agree with me that the present racial situation is untenable and can only become worse under the government’s present policies nevertheless cannot conceive of rectifying the situation. They believe that once a country has been integrated racially it cannot be un-integrated. But it can be—although the process of un-integration is likely to be an extraordinarily painful and bloody process. It is likely to require a civil war much worse that the one we went through in the last century. Much worse. It certainly will disrupt the lives of everyone involved. The soft couch potatoes and the trendy consumers would much prefer to avoid the disruption, so that they can continue their TV-viewing and their consuming. Even people made of somewhat sterner stuff are horrified by the prospect of straightening out our racial situation. But we must do it. We must plan for it. We must not refuse to think about it just because it will be difficult and so unpleasant. We are in our present mess because we failed to act when action would have been far less painful.

In these uncertain times in which we live there is one thing of which we can be certain: and that is, the Jews and their collaborators in the government, the media, the schools, and the churches will cling to the death to their plan for the destruction of our people through miscegenation. They have a tiger by the tail, and they know that they must not let go. And so conditions in America will continue to grow worse and worse, as the enemies of our people continue desperately to push us to the point of no return. Our schools and our cities will become more jungle-like; our popular culture will become more alien, more debased, more Negroid and more Mexican and more Asian; the behavior of our politicians and our sports and entertainment stars will become more animalistic; our government will become even more corrupt. And white Americans will run out of suburbs to which they can flee. And when they no longer can evade the situation, when they no longer can ignore it, when they no longer can parrot the Politically Correct lies about race without any danger of being contradicted by reality—then more and more white Americans finally must make decisions about the future they don’t want to think about now.

And we know that many of them will just wring their hands and cry in womanish despair, “Oh, why can’t the races get along with each other? Why can’t there be peace and cooperation between the races so that I can continue to consume in comfort and safety and Political Correctness? Oh, why must I deal with this difficult and unpleasant problem of race?” And we know that more of the weakest and most degraded of our people, the most corrupt and selfish of our people, will join our enemies in the hope of temporarily improving their own personal situations. But we also know that many others, when there no longer is a safe suburb to which they can flee, finally will be ready to stand and fight.

And my message to these last is this: Don’t wait until the last minute to make your decision; much better to make it sooner than later. Don’t fall for the defeatist lie that we cannot un-integrate America because it will be too difficult and too violent and too painful. Don’t refuse to think about the grim and bloody remedy of a civil war—because the alternative is far grimmer and far bloodier. Civil war is thinkable, civil war is plannable—when the alternative is extinction. Be a man and face reality and steel yourself to do whatever must be done to undo the damage that our enemies have done to us, so that our people will have a future.[545]William Pierce, “Thinking About a White Future,” 自由言论, vol. 4, no. 8. August 1998, pp. 6-8.

承担责任

This wonderful gift of life that we have, what does it mean? What is its real value? Is it simply a collection of sensations, of feelings? I’m sure that for many people that is what life is. The more pleasurable their collection of sensations, the more pleasant their feelings, the more enjoyable the things they see, the better their life is. And that’s understandable. That’s what life always has been for animals—and we are animals. We are creatures of instinct, and our instincts tell us to survive, to find food, to seek shelter, to reproduce, to avoid danger. In a prosperous, civilized society the drive to satisfy these basic needs expresses itself as a quest for wealth, for enjoyment, for comfort.

A thousand years ago our ancestors also sought wealth, enjoyment, and comfort. But they didn’t believe that these things were quite so important as most people today think they are. In that age before television, people were perhaps a little closer to the earth, and they were a little more aware of just how temporary an individual’s life is, and they reached out for things with a little more permanence, things beyond comfort and pleasure, things which to them seemed to have more real meaning. I remember a poem which expressed this feeling among our ancestors in Scandinavia—and more generally in the Germanic parts of Europe—back during the Viking age. Those lines are:

牛死，亲戚死，
这样一个人就死了；
我知道一件事永远不会消失：
死者的事迹名声大噪。

For our ancestors a thousand years ago, of course, cattle were wealth, and kinsmen were power, and though they sought these things just as we do today, they understood that they were transitory; the value of these things was not permanent. The only thing that is permanent is the mark that one makes on the world with one’s deeds. Everyone wants to live well, of course, but it is better to live effectively: to live so that one is remembered for what one has accomplished.

And to put a little finer edge on the concept, it is not just fame in itself which is important. What counts also is the type of fame, the type of renown. The goal was to be remembered not just for being able to throw a spear farther than others or to swing a battle-ax harder or to use a sword more skillfully; it was to be remembered for having lived a meaningful life, a significant life. For some that meant a life of accomplishment, of changing the world; for others it meant a life lived as closely as possible in accord with the ideals of personal honor and of service to one’s people, so that one’s life could be held up as a model and remembered as such.

In any case, the life that had lasting value was a life of participation; never a life of sitting on one’s hands and playing it safe. Perhaps too much television and too much comfort have caused us to lose sight of this very important thing which our ancestors understood. I think that they saw their individual lives more clearly in the larger context of the ongoing life of the race than we do. They were on more familiar terms with birth and with death than we are and were not as likely as we are to slip into the folly of believing that they would live forever. And so being constantly aware of the reality and inevitability of death they were more concerned than we are to use their lives effectively and to give lasting meaning to them.

For those of us today who do want to participate in life, who want to live significant lives, there is no more significant activity in which to participate than working to assure a healthy future for our people, for our European race. And there is almost no limit to the ways in which you can participate in this activity. Whether you’re a housewife or a computer scientist or a machinist or a secretary or a bulldozer operator or a law-enforcement officer or a teacher or a writer or an artist, you can participate. The only reason that a rabble of feminists and homosexuals and Jews and blacks and mestizos and liberals are running America into the ground today is that decent people are sitting on their hands. We must be willing to accept personal responsibility.

And so my message today to every decent person who is listening is this: Don’t be a shirker. Don’t try to be a smart guy by continuing to cheer from the sidelines but refusing to join the team and get out on the field. Stand up and become a participant in life. Make of your life a model that people will remember and talk about long after you’re gone.[546]5. William Pierce, “Thoughts on Accepting Responsibility,” 自由言论, vol. 5, no. 2, February 1999, pp. 14-15.

The importance of courage

There are plenty of people who agree with us about the type of society we want, the type of future we want for our people. There are many people who are disgusted with the rotten politicians and the rotten political system we have in Washington, people who are angry about what non-white minorities have done to our schools and our cities, people who are sick and tired of seeing television and the other mass media promote everything which is sick, perverse, and destructive. Many people don’t feel guilty when the media tell them to feel guilty. There are plenty of people who want a clean, decent, white society for their children to grow up in. But these people are afraid to say or do anything. Many are terrified even to have other people know what they are 思维.

I understand the difference between prudence or reasonable caution on the one hand and cowardice or unreasoning fear on the other hand. Prudence is no vice, but cowardice is. The times we are living in tend to make cowards of us all. We are pressed to make moral compromises every day, and it becomes a habit. We adjust our behavior in order to get by without a lot of trouble. We do not act heroically because heroism is out of fashion. We try to do what is prudent rather than what is heroic.[547]6. William Pierce, “Cowardice and Individualism,” 自由言论, vol. 4, no. 6, June 1998, pp. 9-12.

I’m not asking for courage from people who have none in them, but there are still a few individuals who are capable of being honest. Even in our universities. Even in our government. A few who have the courage to be honest if they are given a little encouragement, if someone else will set an example for them. We should never think, “Well, I am only one person. What I do or don’t do isn’t important. I can’t make a difference by myself.” That kind of thinking is wrong. We can make a difference. Courage is contagious. It spreads from person to person. And it is powerful. One courageous truth-teller can back down a thousand cowards and liars and hypocrites. There has never been a time in the long history of our race when we were more in need of a few honest men and women, a few people of courage and integrity. There has never been another time when a few good men and women had the opportunity to make such a big difference as they can make right now.[548]7. William Pierce, “Brainwashing in America, “ 美国持不同政见者之声 audio tape no. 629 (Hillsboro, WV: National Vanguard Books, 1995).

Pierce no longer has yearly national conventions of the National Alliance. He told me that they became too difficult to organize and that he doesn’t have the resources to bring them off properly. Now instead, he hosts two leadership conferences, as he calls them, at the West Virginia property on weekends in the spring and fall of the year. They commence early Saturday afternoon and participants have left by mid-afternoon on Sunday. Most participants stay in motels in the area, as accommodation space on the property is limited. Pierce invites about fifty Alliance members to each conference based upon, he says, their potential for playing a more active role in the organization.

Pierce uses the conferences to connect with the membership—otherwise, he rarely sees them in person—and to solicit support for the Alliance, both financially and in terms of service the members can provide. He also uses the conferences to recruit staff. Pierce met both Evelyn Hill and Bob DeMarais at leadership conferences.

For the Alliance members, these weekends are a chance to meet Pierce. To many of them he is a revered and distant figure, and they consider it a privilege to be in his presence. As well, it is an opportunity for them to connect or reconnect with one another and recount what they are doing and share ideas. Also, being with like-minded people boosts their morale and motivation. Plus, the weekend affords them a pleasant weekend away in the mountains.

One of the leadership conferences was held while I was in West Virginia. As I walked over to the headquarters building on a sunny Saturday afternoon for the formal start of the meeting, I saw thirty or so cars, trucks, and vans parked in front of the building and along the dirt road leading up to it. The license plates were from around the East and South. One of them, on a pickup truck, caught my eye. It was a personalized plate—F ZOG. The F stood for, well, the “f” word. As for what ZOG meant, in far-right lingo the federal government is thought to be in the hands of the Jews, so it is referred to as the Zionist Occupied Government, or ZOG for short. I don’t know whether this particular Alliance member ran into any problem over the plate. It could be that the authorities and other people didn’t get the reference. I know that one of the Alliance unit leaders has had some difficulty along these lines. The North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles recalled his ARYAN plate because it deemed that the plate might be offensive to others.

About twenty people were standing on the lawn in front of the headquarters building talking as I approached. They were dressed up—Pierce had said in his invitation letters that the men should wear coats and ties. Pierce was standing among them. He was taller than just about everyone and was wearing a wool sports jacket that looked as if it had seen many a moon. It was the first time I had seen him dressed up.

As I walked into the building, I saw a small table had been set up. On it were a few books for sale and some flyers. Also on the table was a framed portrait of Pierce. It was one of those airbrushed, glamorizing, almost deifying depictions of the sort I associate with someone like Mao, the Pope, or some other “bigger that life” personage. I didn’t look at it closely, but I wouldn’t have been surprised if it had had clouds in the background. It had an ethereal look about it in any case.

People were starting to take their seats in folding chairs that had been set up in the narrow meeting room four to each side of an aisle that ran down the middle. In the front of the room was the lectern with the Life Rune symbol on the riser where it always is. Its microphone was plugged in.

Bob DeMarais called the conference to order. He was dressed in a lightweight gray suit. I hadn’t seen Bob dressed up before either.

As I looked around the room, I noticed there were only six women in attendance. I later learned only a couple of them were Alliance members. The others had accompanied men to the conference. Pierce had told me that women make up twenty percent of the Alliance membership. If that is the case, they weren’t at the conference in numbers reflective of their percentage in the organization. There were a few children at the conference, all of them quite young, under seven or eight years of age. The conference had a distinctly male cast to it.

Most of the men in attendance were in their thirties and forties, with a few older and only one who appeared to be younger than twenty-five. The fifty or so members in the room introduced themselves. Pierce had talked to me about having a sizeable professional contingent in the Alliance, but here again the backgrounds of the leadership conference participants weren’t indicative of that. I don’t remember any doctors or lawyers or business executives or politicians or journalists or schoolteachers or university professors. There was a software engineer, a driver for a motor parts company, a prison guard, a construction worker, a computer consultant. Many of those in attendance were of the sort to have had junior college or technical training, that level of education. And many seemed to work on their own, out of their home in a number of cases. During the weekend, I spoke to an out-of-work airline pilot. He said that he had been distributing National Alliance literature on a school campus—I think he said it was at a high school—and that a gun was found in his car and it had cost him his job.

With a few exceptions, the people at the leadership conference didn’t come across as loud, angry, or strident. They tended to be soft-spoken, modest, and somewhat diffident. I had the impression that with regard to American life many of them saw themselves as basically on the outside looking in. There were bad things going on in this country, they were sure of that, but these things were going on over there somewhere, apart from them, and it was all bigger than they were. For them, life was their family and their job and, for some, the other Alliance members in their unit with whom they meet once a month to talk about what is happening to their country. I didn’t get the sense that this was a group on a collective mission to change the world. Not like, say, a group of feminists, multiculturalists, conservationists, or gay rights activists who feel themselves to be on the cutting edge of a movement to bring about a new and better society. Rather, these people seemed more a collection of individuals just trying to get through their lives in a society that in their eyes had gone very wrong.

I don’t want to overstate the case about the peripheral quality I sensed among the participants in the conference. It was distinctly there, but there were some in attendance who were taking action in light of their convictions. How effective the action was is open to question, but they were doing something. I noticed that many of these activities were in support of the National Alliance as an organization. These were attempts to bring attention to the Alliance and to attract new members to it. For example, one participant in the conference reported setting up a telephone message service. With a message service, a number for the National Alliance is listed in the telephone directory. When people call it they get a recorded message from Pierce about the Alliance, a place to write to get further information, and an opportunity to leave their address and phone number so someone from the Alliance can get back to them. This is the means, evidently, that Timothy McVeigh used to contact the Alliance. Another example: one conference participant had put up a billboard outside of the FortBragg, North Carolina army base promoting the Alliance. Several reported putting Alliance material on cars underneath the windshield wiper and inserting it into books at the library. One participant said he put Alliance material into the postage-paid envelopes that accompany advertising notices and put them in the mail. One unit had made up some posters. And then there were a couple of people who said they regularly wrote letters to the editor to their local newspaper. Along with stating their piece on whatever the topic was, they made sure to include a pitch for the Alliance.

During the weekend, I spoke with the unit leader in Cleveland—a tall brown-haired, gregarious man in his thirties named Erich—about some European cultural festivals his unit had been organizing. The most recent one, he told me, included a dinner of ethnic food catered by unit members. The entertainment was Scottish bagpipes and Bavarian and Slovak folk dancing groups. Erich said that so far his unit has been getting a good response to his European cultural fests.

Erich said he considers European white kids in this country to be culturally deprived. He believes they have been conditioned by the Jewish-controlled music industry to buy into rock and rap music—black or black-inspired music—and taught to look down on the musical expressions of their own people, including classical music. Erich said he wants to show white kids that there are other kinds of music out there.

Erich considers the way white young people dance these days to be alien to European culture. It emulates black ways of moving and being, he says. Often whites do it very self-consciously and clumsily, simply because it isn’t natural to them. Dance has come down to girls gyrating suggestively to pulsating music while their “partners”—most of the time a boy, but sometimes another girl—do the same thing some distance away. Often, the boys aren’t as good at this kind of wiggling as the girls are, and the whole business becomes a bit embarrassing to everybody involved. And if it isn’t embarrassing it ought to be—they look silly. The break in this pattern comes with the slow music, when pairs hug each other tightly and sway back and forth as they shift from one foot to another and call it dancing.

Erich asserts that young people—and most adults too, the dominance of the media-driven “pop” culture having prevailed for decades—have come to believe that these undignified displays are “cool,” while more elegant and subtle dances such as the fox-trot, waltz, and ethnic folk dances—where males and females work as a team to accomplish something rather than put on self-centered and chaotic sexual displays—are “out of it.” The European dances, Erich holds, set out different roles for men and women in contrast to the blurring of natural distinctions that has taken hold in recent years. They also reflect romance and courtly love rather than sexually “hooking up.” In Erich’s eyes, today’s dances reflect an ill-mannered, loose, and loud way of being that is more African American than European-American. One promising sign in an otherwise bleak picture, he said, is that Irish step dancing is selling out arenas, and European-style dancing was prominently displayed in the popular film 泰坦尼克号.

I also spoke with a WashingtonStateUniversity student by the name of Justin. Justin was dressed in a buttoned-up suit and is a blond, fair-skinned, polite young man of medium height and build. He stood out to me at the conference because he was the only person under twenty-five and the only one who looked to be a student. He told me that he had been influenced by 特纳日记， and that he was majoring in psychology at WSU and interested in philosophy and wanted to go to law school after he got his bachelor’s degree.

I learned later that Justin had raised a stir on the WSU campus when he organized a lecture by the controversial British historian David Irving. Irving’s lecture was attended by four hundred people. Irving has the reputation of being overly sympathetic to the German side in World War II and the Nazis and for his skepticism about the accepted account of the Holocaust. Irving’s most recent book is on Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister. Many consider the book to be too friendly to Goebbels. The book was scheduled for publication in this country, but its American publisher withdrew.

Bringing Irving to campus put Justin under the gun. One of Pierce’s membership bulletins reprinted excerpts of a letter by a WSU professor to a local newspaper. (I have decided to use just the first initial of Justin’s last name.)

…I said months ago that Justin R— was a vicious anti-Semite with ties to a wide network of neo-Nazi organizations whose affiliations endanger the security of the Jews….I said that his goal is not to debate the Holocaust but to use the freedoms afforded by an open society to spread poisonous notions….The size of the crowd at Irving’s talk will be touted by R— and his friends as a demonstration of their growing influence and legitimacy….Here is what the advocates of unfettered free speech have wrought: a not entirely unsympathetic audience of college students for a speaker who made a clear gesture of solidarity with the greatest act of mass murder in history, and who said in broad daylight…under the cover of the respectability afforded by the venue where he spoke that the Jews who died during the war years were somehow responsible for what happened to them. This is an extraordinary thing. It is nothing less than a disaster for WSU, for Pullman, and for Jews everywhere in the United States.[549]National 联盟 公告，四月1998。

In the bulletin, Pierce wrote about Justin’s actions:

Justin R—’s success with this lecture is due in part to his hard work and his organizing skill, but more than anything else it is due to his courage. It takes courage for a 21-year-old senior to stand up to the sort of hatred that was directed against him by Jews and their allies in the administration, faculty, and student body at his school. Because he did stand up and see this project through to its successful conclusion, he now can walk with his head higher than thousands of other young men at universities all over America who share his beliefs but not his courage.[550]同上。
(National 联盟 公告，1998年XNUMX月。）

One of the speakers the first afternoon of the conference was a board member of Germany’s radical-nationalist NPD party (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands), Alexander von Webenau. Alexander is in charge of student recruitment for the party. He was staying with Pierce for a week in order to establish a closer relationship between the NPD and the National Alliance. Pierce told me that parties like the NPD have a tough go of it in Germany. One of the rallying cries of the NPD is animosity toward the increasing number of foreigners entering Germany’s workforce and society from Turkey and elsewhere. In his talk, Alexander said they wanted to get the “big noses” out of Germany. Pierce says that there are laws preventing such references to minorities. All parties in Germany must have a democratic structure and can’t use any of the symbols or terms of banned parties such as the Nazis. For instance, right-wing groups have used the term “88” in the past, but now it is prohibited (the letter H is the eighth letter of the alphabet, so 88 is HH or Heil Hitler). Pierce says there is some chance that the NPD will be outlawed as a political party.

Pierce says he would like to see 特纳日记 made available in Germany but the printing and sale of books like 特纳日记 is banned in that country. The German distributor of the book (in German it is Die Turner Tagebücher) has had it printed in German outside of Germany and is trying to get the book back into the country for sale. Pierce’s writing may also soon be available in Poland. Both 特纳日记 和 Hunter were recently picked up by a publisher in that country.

I was surprised to learn that Alexander was only twenty years old at the time. He looked older. I would have guessed him to be twenty-eight or thirty. He is tall and well-built, has short dark hair parted on the side, and wears wire-rim glasses. His skin seemed a little pasty to me—perhaps he could eat better or get more exercise—and from his red gums he might have the beginnings of periodontal disease. In manner, Alexander seemed a nice young man. He was somewhat shy and removed, although that may have had something to do with his difficulty with English. My image of Alexander during the conference is of him sitting over on the side looking through the German-English dictionary he brought with him and then responding warmly and politely to someone who came by to say something to him.

In introducing Alexander as guest speaker, Bob DeMarais informed the audience that Alexander had been kicked out of the German army when his political affiliations became known, and that his removal received a good deal of press coverage in Germany. Bob said that the speech Alexander had prepared to deliver at the conference had been confiscated at the Munich airport just before his departure, and that he had been forced to reconstruct it from memory after arriving in West Virginia.

Alexander’s brief talk—fifteen minutes or so—centered on the progress the NPD is making, as well as some of the problems it faces in light of what it considers to be the repressive political climate in Germany. He referred to himself as a German nationalist. He spoke of a rally the NPD had organized on what they call the Day of National Resistance. Over six thousand people had attended, Alexander said. The event was a success, he said, and nationalist sentiment in Germany is growing.

The rally Alexander referred to is the same one where Pierce was prevented from speaking by German authorities. I remember being taken by the fact that Pierce didn’t appear indignant over what had happened to him on that occasion. He spoke to me about being barred from speaking in a very matter-of-fact and somewhat bemused manner. I learned that is Pierce’s typical response to the actions of the people who oppose him. He reflects a “they do what they do and I do what I do” attitude with reference to his adversaries. For example, there is his posture toward Morris Dees, the co-founder and chief legal counsel of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who hounds people like Pierce and others of his political stripe. Dees recently won a judgment in court against Pierce in a case involving some land in North Carolina Pierce had purchased from the head of a far-right group called the Church of the Creator, a man named Ben Klassen, who has since died. The jury held that Pierce’s profit from his subsequent sale of the property—eighty-five thousand dollars—should go to the mother of a black man who was killed by a member of Klassen’s organization. I expected Pierce to talk about Dees in a way that indicated that he resents Dees, despises him—but he never did. I picked up a quiet contempt for Dees from Pierce, but he never outwardly showed resentment or animosity when Dees’s name came up. It was more a matter of Dees being who he is and being up front about it. He is not pretending to be something he is not. He is out to get me and that is just the way it is, and I accept that.

The same thing held true with regard to Pierce’s attitude toward Jews. When Pierce talked about Jews it was as if it is simply in the natural order of things that Jews are his enemy. It is like one animal being a predator of another. It is not something to get all worked up about. It is as if one were to get distressed about the fact that lions kill zebras. That is what lions do. And zebras run from lions, that is what they do. “Jews do that what they do, and I do what I do.” That seems to be Pierce’s basic attitude.

Or at least that is his attitude on the surface. Underneath Pierce’s outward stoical acceptance of reality, which gives him the appearance of possessing a kind of above-it-all serenity, I pick up something simmering inside him; or perhaps it is better described as something pressuring him from within. One episode that gave me the chills, in which this whatever-it-is came to the surface, occurred one evening when he and Irena invited me to dinner. Pierce sat at the table silently, pistol in his holster. He seemed to be smoldering over something. I felt very uncomfortable and had trouble keeping up a conversation with Irena, which was difficult for me in any case because she was still having trouble with English. Pierce finally came out with what was on his mind. A stray dog had been hanging around the Pierces’ trailer and had chased after a three-legged raccoon that lived in the vicinity. Pierce was concerned that the dog either had or was going to harm the raccoon. He began grilling Irena about the details of the chasing incident she had evidently earlier reported, and she seemed to be becoming increasingly apprehensive. Sitting next to Pierce, I could feel the emotion rise up from within him. I became aware of his size—6’4”—and his muscular arms and large hands as they rested inches away from me on the small kitchen table.

Finally, from out of nowhere it seemed, Irena said, “Don’t shoot the dog, Bill.”

Pierce didn’t reply. Now it was just the two of them. It was as though I weren’t there.

“Don’t shoot the dog, Bill,” Irena repeated, becoming increasingly alarmed and, as it seemed, fearful. “Please don’t shoot the dog.”

Pierce still didn’t reply.

Finally, in a cold, low voice I hadn’t heard before, Pierce said “That dog ought not to be around here.”

The three of us ate in silence for what felt like a long time.

The matter ended there, but the dinner was strained, and I was relieved to take my leave of the trailer that evening.

I never found out what happened to the dog. On another dinner occasion, I asked “Is that stray dog still around here?” Irena answered with a terse, “No, it isn’t,” and I thought it was best to drop the subject.

The Pierces were very gracious to me, and I came to know them and care about how they fared as a couple. One day I talked to Pierce about his marriages.

“I have devoted myself to what seems to me the most important work I could be doing,” Pierce replied. “I justify going home at night and even taking a day off once or twice a year—you can’t burn yourself out too soon. You need to work at maximum efficiency, and that means pulling back for a while, eight hours a day or so. The problem is that that kind of schedule doesn’t fit well with a woman’s priorities, which are home and hearth. Women like to go places—shopping and eating out in restaurants and so on. Irena is constantly on my case that I don’t spend enough time with her. But that doesn’t mesh with the way I approach my work.

“All of the women I have been married to have been good women in one way or another, but none have been soul-mates in the sense of shaping my decisions or sharing in the work I have been doing. My work is not really compatible with a family life, and in one way or another it has broken up all of my marriages—or at least my first four. I have always felt the need for a woman’s company, but there is this problem.

“How a person lives depends not only on his role in things but also on his own character. As for me, I am sort of a loner. When I have time, I prefer to go up to my shop [on the second floor of the office building] and play with my electronic toys and mess around and fix things. Today, for instance, I was fooling with a rifle that was given to me when I was in Cleveland recently. My personal style has put some strain on my marriages too, I suppose.

“As for the other people who come here [to West Virginia], I’m not saying they have to work the same hours I work. I just want them to give as much as they are capable of giving, and for some people that may mean working even more hours than I do. I don’t think this is the right period in history to try to make this into a monastic effort, where everybody who comes out here gives us everything he owns and in return gets a coarse robe and a little room to live in, and he belongs to the Alliance eighteen hours a day. That worked fine in the Middle Ages, but times were different then and the monasteries were a real shelter from the world. Some people couldn’t have made it if they hadn’t gone into the monastery. Back then, monasteries served a useful function in the society. Some good scholarship was accomplished in them. They had good discipline, and some really intelligent people with good character were drawn to them. But now religious orders have declined sharply. The Catholics, for example, can hardly find enough priests to fill the available positions. So I don’t think trying to have a monastic tone around here would work.”

Pierce says that he realizes that the work he is doing may make it impossible for him to keep a relationship going long term. As he was telling me this, I thought of the price he pays to be in the relationship with Irena. He would like to work even more hours than he does but feels that he owes it to her to be with her and take her places. Other than work trips and the necessary visits to the post office, the grocery store, and the hardware store, I don’t think that Pierce has the desire to go anywhere. Irena doesn’t understand his passions and she hasn’t shared his history. And as far as I can tell, she doesn’t share his politics. (A couple of indications of that: One evening, Pierce was going on about Jews. Finally, in a quiet voice Irena said, “Every group has a right to a place on this earth.” On another occasion, Irena interrupted one of Pierce’s discourses on Jews with, “Now Bill, what would you do if you found out I was Jewish?”)

Pierce has been through the loss of all the women close to him. He must feel as if he is standing on a trapdoor that will spring sooner or later. I asked him on one occasion whether he thinks about being quite old and alone in West Virginia and with his health not as good as it is now. He replied he knew that might well happen, and that he will just have to deal with it if it does.

It is hard to tell what Pierce and Irena’s future is together. On the positive side, they look like a couple to me, and a handsome and dignified one at that. She gently teases him, and they smile and laugh together, and he makes sure she gets her new glasses up in Elkins (a town 90 miles to the north). There they are, side by side, in the Chevy Blazer bouncing along the dirt road on the way to the post office, he in his T-shirt and jeans and workboots, she is her white blouse and jeans with her hair neatly in place and her make-up carefully done, and looking for all the world like mates content to be with one another.

But then again, I remember one day when I went with them to get the mail. That day, Irena was late walking down the mountain as she usually did to meet Pierce at the headquarters building for the ride into town. To save some time, Pierce, with me in the front seat, drove the Blazer up the road of the mountain toward their trailer with the intention of meeting Irena as she was coming down. When we got about half way up the mountain, I saw Irena walking on the driver’s side of the road. Pierce stopped the vehicle and waited for her to get in.

As Irena walked toward the Blazer and crossed in front of it toward the passenger door, her eyes were cast downward, and she seemed grim. When she got into the car and saw me—she obviously hadn’t known I was in the car—she immediately switched back to the upbeat persona that I associated with her. Or at least she tried to; I could tell that something was wrong.

It was a tense ride to the post office. Pierce seemed to me to be on his best behavior and was solicitous to Irena. In return, she was polite but brief with him. When we arrived at the post office, Pierce went in to get the mail, and Irena and I stood on the sidewalk waiting for him. I looked over at her and saw that her eyes were filled with tears. I finally said, “It has been kind of a rough day, Irena?”

“Not just today, Bob,” she replied.

After Alexander von Webenau’s talk at the leadership conference, it was Pierce’s turn to speak. Essentially, Pierce’s speech—he writes everything out and reads it word for word—was a “state of the organization” report. He outlined how he viewed the current status of the National Alliance and where he wants it to go in the future.

The major theme of his talk was the need to get more people involved in leadership positions. He said that the National Alliance has a well-defined philosophy, and there are people committed to the Alliance and its beliefs, but it has no real organizational structure. From what I can tell, that is true. The Alliance’s local units operate under general guidelines set out in the 143-page National Alliance membership handbook, but they function for all practical purposes autonomously and are left to their own devices as to the activities and projects they undertake.[551]National 联盟 Membership Handbook （西维吉尼亚州希尔斯伯勒：国家先锋图书公司，1993 年）。 There simply isn’t anyone to oversee what they do or give them direction. Pierce and those who assist him in West Virginia are working day and night to keep their heads above water and don’t have the time to provide it.

In his talk to the conference, Pierce reflected his advancing age and sense of mortality as he expressed concern about what will happen to the National Alliance after his retirement or death. He said that the pattern of one-man organizations—and the Alliance is that, really—is for them to fade away when their leader passes. As an example, Pierce cited George Lincoln Rockwell’s organization where Pierce himself got his start, and how it didn’t survive after Rockwell’s assassination. Pierce also pointed out that the Christian Nationalist Crusade dropped from the scene when its leader, Gerald L. K. Smith died. Smith was a fundamentalist preacher who focused his energies on politics. In the early 1930s, he had been one of the first members of an organization called the Silver Shirts, which was an American version of Nazi stormtroopers led by the journalist and novelist William Pelley. In 1934, Smith left his church ministry to go to work for the populist Louisiana governor Huey Long as the national organizer for Long’s “Share the Wealth” campaign, a scheme to decentralize and redistribute wealth in America. Smith later moved to Michigan and aligned himself with his idol, the auto giant Henry Ford, who, it is said, fueled Smith’s anti-Semitism and financed his activities, including a radio program. Smith was a galvanizing orator who attracted large crowds to hear his message combining nativism, nationalism, populism, and anti-Semitism. Smith promoted Charles Lindbergh and General Douglas MacArthur as presidential possibilities and vehemently opposed the Kennedys, whom he considered, as one writer put it, “fake Catholics, whiskey-drinking whoremongers, and puppets of the international Jews.”[552]詹姆斯·里奇韦, 脸上的血：三K党、雅利安民族、纳粹光头党和新白人文化的崛起, 2nd ed., New York: Thunder Mouth Press, 1995). When George Wallace ran as a third party candidate in 1968, Smith was one of his Oklahoma electors. Smith died in 1976.[553]See Glen Jeansonne, Gerald L. K. Smith: Minister of Hate （纽黑文：耶鲁大学出版社，1988）。

Pierce said that the National Alliance needs to create a clearly defined organizational structure. He said this would help ensure the vitality and continuity of the organization. With such an arrangement in place, it would be easier to bring new people in at the bottom and mold and assess them each step of the way to top leadership positions. A priority, Pierce said, is for the Alliance to recruit a few good men and women to fill the slots in a newly-created hierarchical organizational pattern. He said he was looking for leaders at both the regional and national levels. He acknowledged that making a full-time commitment to an organization such as the National Alliance might not be the best career move in the conventional sense. The kinds of people he wanted, Pierce said, were “unreasonable people who are willing to stick their necks out.”

Pierce then listed other personnel needs. He said he wanted someone to manage recruiting efforts. (He later found someone, a thirty-four-year-old recent immigrant from South Africa by the name of Sam van Rensburg, but van Rensburg left after a few months.) Pierce said that he wants to recruit new members at ten times the current rate. There are segments of the population whom the Alliance has not been reaching with its message well enough, Pierce noted. Police and career military personnel are two groups who lean toward authoritarianism and might be attracted to the Alliance, he added. And more could be done on university campuses, he said. There are a lot of healthy men and women in university settings who haven’t bought into the consumer culture, Pierce said. Schoolteachers are another group; and radical environmentalists, many of whom are now exploring “flaky religions” and getting into the Jewish-influenced Green movement. Teenagers are another group who could be better informed about the National Alliance and its ideas, Pierce said.

Many of these kinds of people, and others as well, Pierce maintained, have a gut feeling that something is wrong with this culture and amiss in their own lives, but there are difficult hurdles to be overcome in tapping into that feeling and linking the Alliance’s message to it. Anyone taking on that job for the Alliance faces the challenge of overcoming all of the social conditioning that has predisposed people to turn away from an organization carrying around the negative labels and characterizations which others have attached to the Alliance. People have been trained not to even listen to what the Alliance has to say, Pierce asserted. And if they do listen at all, they are so set in the thinking previously drummed into them that they are unable to do anything other than plug whatever the Alliance says into their pre-existing negative ideas about it and its way of looking at the world. A major challenge, Pierce acknowledged, is to find ways to communicate with mainstream people in a form they find acceptable and can relate to—something the Alliance has had difficulty doing up to now.

Pierce said that recruitment won’t be geared to an immediate project—supporting a proposition on a local ballot or this-or-that candidate for office, or some such thing. That kind of short-run project is not the Alliance’s focus, Pierce stressed. Rather, the Alliance is looking for people who are ready to make a commitment to its long-term mission, which is a grander goal: to bring about the transformation of our people.

Pierce then listed some recruiting tactics the Alliance might employ. Internships could be set up for college students to work in the Alliance central office in West Virginia. Ways could be sought to reach young people through the music they listen to. (A few months later, Pierce purchased Resistance Records. This company produces and distributes “white resistance music” by bands with names like Nordic Thunder, Celtic Warrior, and Kindred Spirit, and publishes 抵制 magazine, which is devoted to the music scene. In an Alliance bulletin, Pierce wrote: “We want young, alienated White Americans to understand 为什么 they are alienated and to have a positive goal for which they can work and fight, instead of simply being filled with undirected and often self-destructive rage.”[554]National 联盟 公告，1999 年 1 月，第 2-XNUMX 页。 In 2000, construction of a large building on the property to house Resistance’s operations began.)

Culture fests of the sort that the Cleveland unit is organizing are a promising recruitment vehicle, Pierce told the leadership conference audience, as are lectures by well-known figures such as the one Justin set up at WashingtonState. Pierce said he was impressed with the NPD rally he had attended in Germany, and that perhaps someone could come on board to organize public meetings. Displays at gun shows might be useful for recruitment, he said. Also, someone could take on the responsibility for helping local units set up more frequent and appealing meetings. And perhaps the Alliance’s Web site could be made more interactive and engaging. All of these activities could augment the current means of recruiting, he said—the radio program, the Web site, the telephone message services, and the Alliance stickers. Pierce said that at this point the Web site was the most effective recruiting tool the Alliance had at its disposal.

Pierce told his audience that there is a need for the Alliance to generate more publications. At the present time, he said, there are only the radio program transcripts which are compiled in 自由言论 each month. There is much to be written, Pierce pointed out, on issues such as immigration, the political system, racial differences, free trade and the de-industrialization of this country, World War II and the Holocaust, and the Jewish influence on life in America. There is the need for ideological fiction and nonfiction books. Posters need to be created. Audio and video productions are needed. And the Alliance would benefit greatly from the contributions of writers and editors, as well as people with technical skills like audio-mixing and video production.

As I listened to Pierce tell his audience about his concerns and hopes for the future of the Alliance and his hopes for it, I thought about how he is pulled this way and that by competing impulses. On the one hand, I am sure he is sincerely worried about what will happen to the organization when he no longer heads it as its chairman. And I think he very much wants a more active, vital organization, and more people involved in its operations. And he most certainly would like to get out from under the administrative responsibilities he carries, as well as the burden of writing, recording, and distributing the radio program week after week. But at the same time, I think Pierce likes things the way they are. He has set up a life for himself that serves his needs quite well. He has an arrangement where he can write and disseminate what he wants to say. He is in charge of things and doesn’t have to accommodate himself to anyone. People work under him and do his bidding. He is basically a loner, so he must welcome to some extent a situation where day-to-day he doesn’t have to deal with a lot of people. He is living in the kind of remote, rural setting that is his preference. His relationship with Irena is pretty much of the sort he prefers. He has enough of an ego, I believe, that he finds it gratifying not to have to share the spotlight with anybody. And finally, while I’m sure Pierce would like the Alliance to continue upon his passing, I think the idea that carries the most weight with him is that one’s most important legacy is the memory the living will have of the way he conducted his life. The fame of a dead man’s deeds is what lives on, Pierce believes. I think he takes comfort in the thought that although he is a vilified figure now, future generations will remember him in a different light. And I don’t think he believes that the continued existence of the National Alliance is necessary for the perception of him someday to be a positive one.

Saturday evening after dinner, everyone gathered in the meeting area of the headquarters building to listen to one of Pierce’s radio programs at its regularly scheduled time on the shortwave radio station WRNO. A large radio was set up in the front of the meeting hall. As it turned out, however, the station put on the wrong tape and started it too early. The voice of Kevin Strom was heard saying “four, three, two, one” before the show started. I was sitting next to Pierce as he squirmed and grumbled in response to this turn of events.

On Sunday morning, people waited outside Pierce’s office to be called in one at a time for a private talk with him. I don’t know what transpired in these conversations. I think for most people it was a chance to meet Pierce whom they admire so much, and to get his advice and encouragement.

By Sunday afternoon, all of the cars were gone, and life was back to normal at the property for that time of the week. Pierce was in his office working with Hadley perched atop the case of the computer. Bob was sitting in front of his computer in his office. Evelyn was in her house on the property. Fred Streed and his wife Marta were in their small house near the entrance gate. Irena was in the trailer. Ron McCosky was at home in Marlinton. And the lone car in front of the headquarters building was Pierce’s white Chevrolet Blazer.

My month in West Virginia was up. I packed my car and said good-bye to Bob and then drove over to the headquarters building to say good-bye to Pierce. It was ten o’clock in the morning on a beautiful, mild summer day.

Pierce was in his office, and I told him that I was about to leave and said that there is one last thing I wanted to talk to him about. The previous night I had thought about something he had said when he and I were discussing 特纳日记. “I remember asking you what you thought the first line of your obituary would be,” I said to Pierce. “I was trying to get at how tightly linked you are to the book in the public’s mind, my point being that reference to 特纳日记 would surely be in that first sentence of your obituary. Before answering my question you asked me whether I was referring to an obituary before or after the revolution. That’s an interesting distinction. Let’s say you do live beyond the revolution. What would you like the thrust of your obituary to be? I’m trying to get at how you would like to be remembered.”

“I speculated some on that in 特纳日记,” Pierce replied. “If you’ll recall, the book takes place long after Turner’s death. In the foreword of the book he is referred to as a martyr and hero of the revolution, as someone who’s owed a great debt by the generation then alive. Turner and other members of the Organization made it possible for this generation to have a healthy world again. That’s why I had it in there that Turner’s name is inscribed on a Record of Martyrs, and that school children memorize the names on the Record. But that was all just daydreaming. I haven’t thought about how my own obituary would read.”

“But that does give me an idea of what you would like your legacy to be.”

“I think that everybody wants his life to have accomplished something of value,” Pierce continued. “Well, not everybody—a lot of people, I suppose, never think about it. But it does seem to me that a thoughtful man would want his life to have accomplished something of lasting value. If nothing else, most of us have enough vanity that we would like others to recognize that we have done something worthwhile with our lives.

“I have looked at my own motives for what I have done with my life some. One thing that has motivated me, I realize, is the fear of death, at least in a certain sense. It really depresses me to think of living for sixty-five, seventy, or eighty years and then—poof!—gone without a trace, nothing left, forever. The only way out of that situation I can think of is that something I was a part of while I was alive goes on after my death. I am talking about the race. And by race I mean more than a biological entity. There is also a spiritual, cultural, and historical entity that I feel a sense of identity with. I want that to continue. I think about all the great people in our history, and I don’t want what they did to be wasted, lost. I feel a responsibility to them. I want our race memory—and our race itself—to exist a thousand years from now. I want people to know what Shakespeare and Plato wrote, and to admire the Greek sculptors, and to marvel at the music of Beethoven and Wagner, and to think about the people who maintained our racial continuity.

“It may seem subtle, intangible, but I think a sense of connection and responsibility to something bigger than yourself is the single most important thing in the development of a civilization. I think of the people who worked on the cathedrals in the thirteenth century. They knew these buildings were not going to be completed in their lifetimes, but they wanted to contribute to this great creation. It was more than a job for them, I believe. I believe this kind of motivation was more common in the past that it is now in our atomized society where people are interested in looking out for themselves, making money, being accepted, getting ahead in business, demonstrating to their father that they are worthwhile, and so on. When this feeling of responsibility to a larger biological and cultural entity goes, I think the civilization, any civilization, is on the way out.

“I truly believe that my race, the white race, is in jeopardy. I’m not saying tomorrow or next year, but if you think in terms of a century or two—a blip in history, really, Shakespeare wrote four centuries ago—we are threatened. Especially in this country. I believe we need to re-establish a place for ourselves again, on this land, where we can breed true once again, and live 我们的 way once again. I want to contribute to that. I don’t want to be a man who marches in step and can’t face being accused of being a racist or harboring racist or anti-Semitic attitudes, or being unwilling to pay a personal price for doing what I think is right. I want to be more independent than that and more courageous than that.

“I would love to be around a thousand years from now but I won’t be, so I accept the next best thing: that is the possibility that my people will remember the little bit that I contributed to their salvation during a critical period in our history. Whatever anybody thinks about me now, I hope that future generations of my people will conclude that in my life’s work I had them in mind.”

Pierce and I walked out to where my car was parked in front of the headquarters building. I thought about how this was the exact same spot where I had first met him a few months before. I thanked him for his hospitality and asked him to pass on my gratitude to Irena. He wished me a safe trip back to Vermont. We shook hands.

As I opened my car door and was getting into the car, Pierce called out, “I have to drive all the way to Lewisburg this afternoon to take my television set in to get it fixed.”

“It’s beautiful up here,” I responded, “but it sure is a problem if something goes wrong and you have to get something repaired or replaced.”

“That’s for sure,” Pierce said.

I finished getting into the car, closed the door, put on the seatbelt, turned on the engine, and began to drive away. I waved good-bye to Pierce and he waved back.

Seventy or eighty feet down the dirt road, I stopped the car, paused a second, and then looked back up the hill, I guess to wave good-bye one last time—but Pierce had started back inside and was out of view.